[NFHS] Violation on free throw shooter?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

So here's the problem: If we all think "I'm not going to be the only one calling it" then "it" never gets called...and we end up discussing "it" in online forums.

I've had assignors/supervisors tell me they've heard similar feelings from officials and while they understand that also doesn't absolve us from taking care of things. Their response has been make the call - assuming the call in question is supported by the rules - then let them (the supervisor/assignor) know if you took any flak. That's where they step in and give the association its marching orders. We can't get the whole "one rule, one interpretation" thing dealt with if we stay quiet.

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?

[Adam]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

[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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

Sure.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't want to be the only guy in my association to ever call a multiple foul.

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Adam

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?

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?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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'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.