The real problem is actually when the assignors don't back the officials who make calls which are fully supported by the rules and worse yet when they actively advocate not following the rules during games and do such themselves when officiating.

That is what makes it extremely difficult for those officials who strive to enforce the rules as written.

+1

It's all well and good to go out and start making these calls, and I agree that enforcement puts a quick end to silly crap like this, but there are some calls that some assigners just don't want to worry about. This is one in some areas.

As is the twisted heel over the lane line in a gymnastic stance during the free throw.

Here are my questions:
Are you counting ten seconds just as quickly on free throws as you do in the backcourt?

Are you calling a three second violation every time three seconds elapses with a player not getting both feet on the floor completely outside of the lane?

I had a great opportunity for a multiple foul last night. A1 going in for a layup, fouled by B1 as he was going up. Before he came down, B2 comes flying in and knocks him down.

Both players deserved the foul. I just picked one, though, because I don't want to be the only guy in my association to ever call a multiple foul.

So you allowed the second player a free whack on the shooter. Too bad.
You ignored a rule that was put in to protect players from exactly this because you were afraid that your peers would chide you?

Thirty-Two Years, Never Seen One Called ...
 

Maybe the only guy in the world? You'll be famous. Or infamous?

Perhaps he wants to keep getting the games he's getting? I'm going to take wild guess, but I'd guess he (and just about anyone) won't get far anywhere if you're that guy making weird calls like multiple fouls.

I remember asking many college officials in a previous association that I was in...every single one said, unequivocally, that a multiple foul is a test question and to never make that call. Pick one and move on.That may not mesh well for those that just say call the game exactly by the book, but it's the reality of the situation.

Sure.

Sadly, I believe that is the cowardly route. Particularly when player safety issue is involved the official has a duty to step up.
In the situation just posed by Adam, I have a problem allowing a player a free whack that knocks an opponent to the floor. Sounds to me like the second player caused excessive contact on an airborne shooter.
That's just not something which I'm comfortable passing on.

Remember...I said the supervisor/assignor steps in and gives the association its marching orders. If, in the situation presented in the OP, they tell me don't call it, I won't. I have my principles but chief among them is keep working.

That being said...I'd never say there aren't gray areas acknowledged with some rules but I can't see any of my assignors telling us to ignore a kid stepping on the FT line after the ball is at his/her disposal. No call there has an immediate effect on whether a team scores. Additionally, it falls into the "Stevie Wonder in the cheap seats" category: Everyone sees it. I would hope an assignor/supervisor wouldn't even tell an official "just have the kid back up." I'm not saying that if I'm aware of it before the game I won't talk to the player but that's as far as I'll go. He/she can't figure it out once the game starts? That's life.

Think about it: I give A1 the ball, he/she purposely steps on the FT line, I call a violation...and I did something wrong? What is someone going to tell me? 'Yeah, he/she violated, but..." But what?


I'll give you that. I consider myself lucky. My assignors all tell us if the rules back us they'll support us and I haven't run into any problems in that regard. If there's something they don't want us to do, they let us know.

Enforcement of the coaching box seems to be near the top of this list too. Why do my colleagues think that it is okay for a guy to be at the division line "just coaching?" Drives me nuts to see.

1. You're reading way too much into what I wrote. If there had been excessive contact, I would have gone with an intentional foul on the second player and ignored the first contact. As it was, both fouls would have been called alone, but neither would have likely knocked the player to the floor without the other.

2. Your use of "cowardly" is over the top, frankly. I'm following the desire of those who hire me to do a job. I don't work for "the game." I don't work for the NFHS. I work for a local association that does all of the assigning here. If I don't do the job they way they want, I won't get the next job. It's that simple. If and when I get to be an assigner, I'll consider calling it in a situation like I had yesterday.

3. I don't think the rule is there for a situation like mine, but I think you're picturing it differently than it happened. I'll take ownership of that, since you're going off of my description. I think the rule is there for the time when the contact is truly excessive. But what I think is really irrelevant. Making this call as regularly as it happens (two players fouling a shooter) would land me permanently in YMCA ball.

4. How many multiple fouls did you call last season?

I can tell you here, this is not the case. If he has a foot out, that's one thing. If he's at the division line, I'm going to address it every time.

I'm with you. I'd just as soon call this as not, but it's not an ethical issue for me. I disagree that it affects the score. There's no advantage here. None. Should it be called anyway? Sure, I'll go along with that; just like an obvious travel in the backcourt. I just don't think it's that big of a deal.

There are much bigger fish to fry, such as that $#$@$# heel hanging over the line for the defender.

If the 2nd foul was intentional, then the pick one camp would say go with the upgraded foul. If that's cowardly in your eyes, then so be it.