[NFHS] Violation on free throw shooter?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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 BS, 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?

1. Perhaps, but I still don't agree with the basic concept which you are espousing--to deliberately ignore one of the fouls and only penalize one of them when when you clearly observe both and know that by rule they both should be penalized.
2. Let me get this straight. You are purposely not doing what you know is proper because you don't wish to ruffle the feathers of the powers that be as you believe that they won't assign you games and that will cost you money. Hmmmm... I think that our departed friend JR would say that you sold out or are compromising your integrity. I wrote that it was cowardly. I'll stick by that appraisal. How is this any different from officials not whacking the home coach in an area where the school ADs directly hire the officials because they fear not getting asked to come back? Sorry, but if I go down, I'll do so doing it the way that I believe to be right. If someone doesn't hire me because I'm not afraid to make the unpopular calls, then so be it, but it won't be because any coach, assignor, or other official intimidates me into calling or not calling something that it believe in.
3. Again perhaps my visualization is different, but you wrote that a player was fouled on the way up (I'm assuming that we have a whistle at this point) and then B2 comes flying in and knocks the shooter to the floor on the way down. You even added that both players deserved a foul. So why not charge them both? That second one certainly sounds excessive to me.
Now I'm picturing a drive to the hoop here by a guard or a wing player, not a post player powering up through a double or triple team like Dwight Howard and taking contact from multiple defenders. If the former, then this situation is exactly why the multiple foul rule is in the book. It prevents that second defender from coming in late and punishing the guy taking it to the rim. Those are the kind of actions which everyone in the gym can see , and unless dealt with strongly and appropriately, will cause retaliation, further rough play, and even possibly a fight. Calling multiple fouls on post play situations will get you a steady diet of rec ball, but failing to punish a cheap shot will also prevent you from reaching where you wish. I don't normally disagree with much that you post and feel that I am being harsh with you about this, but I really feel that letting what you described go unpenalized is a serious error. What if the shooter had broken his wrist as a result of being knocked down by the second fouler? How are you going to defend a no call when asked why the crew didn't penalize B2 for anything when he caused a severe injury? If that kid had been seriously injured, could you permit B2 to continue to participate with a clear conscience?

4. None, but it wasn't because I passed on any situations that warranted it.

I guess that I've worked my share of State and Regional games and really don't care if an assignor doesn't agree with what I decide to call. I know the rules extremely well and that leads to great confidence in what I call on the court. So I already know that I have rules backing. In my opinion, any assignor who doesn't support an official in that situation is worth the heartache that I'm sure to encounter. I recall rocky road posting about a college assignor, perhaps D1, who didn't back a pregame tech that he called. That's garbage and I certainly don't wish to officiate fearful that my assignor isn't going to have my back. I'll pass on the money, if it comes to that. Fortunately, I've found that coaches like knowing that I won't hesitate to penalize them or their players because they know that I will do the same with the guys wearing the other jerseys and sitting on the other bench, plus their players are going to feel protected.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I completely missed it, because I read passed one little word.

I didn't think you'd answer any differently than you ultimately did but I didn't anticipate how you had misread it.

I was wondering where you were going with that response.

Now I can sleep.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

The twisted heel over the lane line during the free throw.

This is only legal in a girls game. Illegal in a boys game. It has something to do with the Y chromosome, but I'm not a geneticist, nor do I play one on television, so I really can't explain it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...4. None, but it wasn't because I passed on any situations that warranted it.

...

So you're the only official in America who didn't have a single play in which you could have called a multiple foul by rule?

I don't believe that for one second.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Perhaps, but I still don't agree with the basic concept which you are espousing--to deliberately ignore one of the fouls and only penalize one of them when when you clearly observe both and know that by rule they both should be penalized.

I would change "should" to "could" here.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. Let me get this straight. You are purposely not doing what you know is proper because you don't wish to ruffle the feathers of the powers that be as you believe that they won't assign you games and that will cost you money.

No, I don't avoid doing what I know is proper. Frankly, I think it's proper to enforce the rules as my "bosses" see fit, so long as it doesn't break the law.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Hmmmm... I think that our departed friend JR would say that you sold out or are compromising your integrity.

Well, I think we have different assessments of the word integrity.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I wrote that it was cowardly. I'll stick by that appraisal. How is this any different from officials not whacking the home coach in an area where the school ADs directly hire the officials because they fear not getting asked to come back? Sorry, but if I go down, I'll do so doing it the way that I believe to be right. If someone doesn't hire me because I'm not afraid to make the unpopular calls, then so be it, but it won't be because any coach, assignor, or other official intimidates me into calling or not calling something that it believe in.

Interesting question. My first thought is that we're operating under the assumption that the assigner is impartial. That can't be said for the AD.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. Again perhaps my visualization is different, but you wrote that a player was fouled on the way up (I'm assuming that we have a whistle at this point) and then B2 comes flying in and knocks the shooter to the floor on the way down. You even added that both players deserved a foul. So why not charge them both? That second one certainly sounds excessive to me.
Now I'm picturing a drive to the hoop here by a guard or a wing player, not a post player powering up through a double or triple team like Dwight Howard and taking contact from multiple defenders. If the former, then this situation is exactly why the multiple foul rule is in the book. It prevents that second defender from coming in late and punishing the guy taking it to the rim. Those are the kind of actions which everyone in the gym can see , and unless dealt with strongly and appropriately, will cause retaliation, further rough play, and even possibly a fight. Calling multiple fouls on post play situations will get you a steady diet of rec ball, but failing to punish a cheap shot will also prevent you from reaching where you wish. I don't normally disagree with much that you post and feel that I am being harsh with you about this, but I really feel that letting what you described go unpenalized is a serious error. What if the shooter had broken his wrist as a result of being knocked down by the second fouler? How are you going to defend a no call when asked why the crew didn't penalize B2 for anything when he caused a severe injury? If that kid had been seriously injured, could you permit B2 to continue to participate with a clear conscience?

You are picturing it differently. Picture a transition play, kids are scrambling (7th grade boys). B1 goes up with the shooter, both running, and knocks him off trajectory but not enough to knock him down. He knocks him into a moving B2 who had chosen an angle that would have avoided contact initially.

And no, I didn't have a whistle before B2's contact, my whistles aren't generally that fast anymore.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

4. None, but it wasn't because I passed on any situations that warranted it.

I'd like to see you answer BNR's question on this one.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

...

Interesting question. My first thought is that we're operating under the assumption that the assigner is impartial. That can't be said for the AD.


...

Exactly. It makes the 2 situations completely different.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So you're the only official in America who didn't have a single play in which you could have called a multiple foul by rule?

I don't believe that for one second.

What else can I say, the situation just didn't arise this past year. That's not difficult to believe as unless a try for goal or an airborne shooter is involved, the first foul would make the ball dead on almost all plays.
On the other hand I had three flagrant fouls this season and I hadn't called one of those in about seven years. So this stuff seems random to me.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What else can I say, the situation just didn't arise this past year. That's not difficult to believe as unless a try for goal or an airborne shooter is involved, the first foul would make the ball dead on almost all plays.
...

Those aren't the only 2 ways to incur a multiple foul. 2 opponents illegally contacting an opponent at the same time occurs quite frequently over the course of a season. And in those cases you pick one and move on.

To say you haven't done the bolded portion would lead me to question your forthrightness on this subject.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Those aren't the only 2 ways to incur a multiple foul. 2 opponents illegally contacting an opponent at the same time occurs quite frequently over the course of a season. And in those cases you pick one and move on.

To say you haven't done the bolded portion would lead me to question your forthrightness on this subject.

And you can do that AND follow the rules. Since ALL fouls are judgment calls with advantage/disadvantage concepts applied, does the one foul impart any more disadvantage than what was already imparted by the other. If not, was the other contact really a foul at all? Seems to me that, by rule, a second contact is not even likely to be a foul unless it is excessive. In that case, you don't really have a multiple foul, you have more.

[rockyroad]

I love it when someone thorws words like "cowardly" or "just in it for the money" around when someone doesn't call things the way they want it called.

Bottom line - no one, let me repeat that, NO ONE calls the rule book exactly the way it it written on every single page. So to call someone cowardly because they don't call the multiple foul rule the way I think they should, opens me up to being called cowardly when I don't call 3 seconds on the team that is down by 30 points with 5 seconds to go in the game. It's counter-productive.

Anyone who says "I will call that no matter what the powers that be say I should do" is already on the downward side of their career.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And you can do that AND follow the rules. Since ALL fouls are judgment calls with advantage/disadvantage concepts applied, does the one foul impart any more disadvantage than what was already imparted by the other. If not, was the other contact really a foul at all? Seems to me that, by rule, a second contact is not even likely to be a foul unless it is excessive. In that case, you don't really have a multiple foul, you have more.

So, in my situation:

B1's contact is what actually affects the shot attempt.
B2's contact is what knocks an already off balance A1 to the floor.

Neither was excessive.

There's no advantage to B2's contact, but it knocked an airborne shooter to the floor.

Was this:
1. No foul (by rule) on B2 as the shot was already gone and there was no advantage?
2. A foul (by rule) on B2 that gets ignored because we're already calling the foul on B1?
3. A foul (by rule) on B2 that gets called in lieu of the foul on B1 because it knocked A1 to the floor?
4. A multiple foul?

I think we'll do a poll.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think we'll do a poll.

Great. Now you guys have gone and done it. This started out as a simple thread on free throws, and now it's come to this. Why couldn't you guys have just called each other some names, and then one of you just pick up your ball and go home? That's the way we settled arguments when we were kids. But, no. Now we have to have a poll. Thank God Jurassic Referee isn't around to see this. We all remember how much he liked polls. I'm positive that he would have told us exactly where we could put our poll. And with that in mind, thank God we're not talking about flag poles. Ouch, just thinking about it.