Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game ...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Want concrete examples? Alright. Let's count them.

One.



Two.



Three.

With all due respect, anecdotal situations are not concrete evidence. I have had no adverse situations to what I have said and you have assumed that they are taking this comment so literally. And I have never heard an official, clinician or state person tell me to stop or not to say what you suggested. Those things would mean more to me then some people I have never met or never interacted with other than this site. Sorry, concrete would mean more if there was a directive from the National Federation or the IHSA (in my case). People do not even agree with points people lay out in Referee Magazine which is a national publication and we have to agree with you because you are going to make some list and publish it to your local group?

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

This really explains so much.

It should. I am trying to figure out why I must agree with what is on a list. You have not explained that to me yet.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I hear the thread lock rattling.

Somebody must have lost the key.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It should. I am trying to figure out why I must agree with what is on a list. You have not explained that to me yet.

Peace

I'm not saying you have to. I'm saying you're not even understanding what it is you're disagreeing with. Or, you're intentionally misstating their opinions to make some point.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

With all due respect, anecdotal situations are not concrete evidence.

But, you didn't ask for concrete evidence, you asked for concrete examples. I gave you three concrete examples. Want more?

Originally Posted by Adam

I've T'd a coach (lower level game) for arguing about a thrower who "traveled."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I hear the thread lock rattling.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Somebody must have lost the key.

I don't think this thread has delved that far into insanity yet.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not saying you have to. I'm saying you're not even understanding what it is you're disagreeing with. Or, you're intentionally misstating their opinions to make some point.

I understand, I just disagree with the premise. And the example you gave from Adam, happens all the time without any specifics being given to the thrower. I have had coaches think it was a travel and I was not even the administering official and I was not anywhere near enough to hear what an officials said or did not say to the thrower. It did not change the reaction of a coach that felt they could travel out of bounds on a throw-in. You really need to try that one again.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But, you didn't ask for concrete evidence, you asked for concrete examples. I gave you three concrete examples. Want more?

Concrete examples is more than, "I think they believe this based off of what we say" rather then there are multiple situations that have actually happened that have cause great confusion based on a two word phrase, when you are telling them what is the opposite of what they think they could do. If they ask you "Can I move?" what do you think the opposite of that means to them?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If there was a directive from the National Federation or the IHSA.

Originally Posted by Rob1968

NFHS Officials Manual, 2.2 PUTTING THE BALL IN PLAY 2.2.2 C End Line 5. states ; "When the clock is stopped, use the proper verbal and visual signal to indicate whether a spot throw-in or running the end line privileges are in effect." - Signal 26 = Spot Throw-in, Signal 23 = Run End Line.

Not a great citation, it begs the question, what's the proper verbal signal?

We do get some proper verbiage from IAABO, but there are only about ten thousand IAABO members out there, and they're not in all fifty states, they're only in thirty-eight states.

IAABO Crew of Two Basketball Officials Manual (Page 38) Throwin E) Throwin Administration 1) Administering official shall visually sweep the floor d) signal type of throwin 1) designated spot (may use verbiage, if so, "designated spot")

JRutledge: What does the IHSA say? How about your own "Chicagoland" mechanics? I know that you guys use your own mechanics. Go anything in writing?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I understand, I just disagree with the premise. And the example you gave from Adam, happens all the time without any specifics being given to the thrower. I have had coaches think it was a travel and I was not even the administering official and I was not anywhere near enough to hear what an officials said or did not say to the thrower. It did not change the reaction of a coach that felt they could travel out of bounds on a throw-in. You really need to try that one again.

Peace

You seem to be misunderstanding again.
The scenario you are discussing is:
1. Official tells thrower not to move.
2. Thrower doesn't keep his pivot foot and moves within the prescribed limits.
3. Opposing coach complains.

That's not what we're discussing. We're saying that telling a player not to move is just as likely to perpetuate the rule myth as an official who calls traveling on a throw in. It's not a direct relationship between #1 and #3 above. It's a coach who has heard #1, maybe back when he was a player, and then believes it to his core (like a player or coach believing they get 2 steps without a travel).

[Travelling Man]

If the subset of amateur refs like "us" [on this web forum] cannot even agree on the correctness of the "don't move" admonition, then what on God's green earth makes us even think that we can influence the larger population of coaches, players, fans, and media as to the invalidity of the "don't move" admonishment? We cannot even get concensus amongst the 10 folks who are commenting on it via this web.
But as I said earlier---there is no competitive advantage gained in either case.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Travelling Man

There is no competitive advantage gained in either case.

You must have missed this one:

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is a good example of a player being handicapped if he doesn't know the details of a rule. If the thrower is pressured, he needs to take advantage of the freedom that he does have. This is, after all, the only place where a ball fake can include jumping and returning to the floor.

And the four examples where coaches were charged with technical fouls.

Originally Posted by BillyMac: I had to T up a coach this past year because he wouldn't stop complaining to my partner, who, as the administering official, let a player "move" on a designated spot throwin. The coach kept saying, "But he can't move". My partner tried, and I tried, to explain the movement limitations on a designated spot throwin, but he wouldn't accept any of that, he just kept saying, "But he can't move". Eventually, I had to tell him to, "Sit down".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust: I've T'd a coach over an opponent who "moved" on a spot throw in because he was sure they couldn't "move". Where did he get that idea? From officials who tell the players and coaches "don't move". By saying "don't move" you have confused them, not informed them.

Originally Posted by JeffM: Player asks me to back the defender up to give him three feet. I told him no, but that he can back up as far as he would like. He points to a spot three feet behind him and asks if that is ok. I told him yes and he could back up all the way to the wall if he would like. The idea seemed foreign to him. I think very few players understand this rule. Otherwise, they would back up more frequently to have a clear passing lane.

Originally Posted by Adam

4. I've T'd a coach (lower level game) for arguing about a thrower who "traveled."

And this one:

Originally Posted by JeffM

Player asks me to back the defender up to give him three feet. I told him no, but that he can back up as far as he would like. He points to a spot three feet behind him and asks if that is ok. I told him yes and he could back up all the way to the wall if he would like. The idea seemed foreign to him. I think very few players understand this rule. Otherwise, they would back up more frequently to have a clear passing lane.

If we keep saying, "Don't move", then eventually, a lot of players, coaches, fans, and maybe a few ignorant officials, are going to think that the player can't move.

And, if you're one of those 10,000 IAABO members, in one of those thirty-eight states, and you say, "Don't move", then you need to read the IAABO Mechanics Manual.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO Crew of Two Basketball Officials Manual (Page 38) Throwin E) Throwin Administration 1) Administering official shall visually sweep the floor d) signal type of throwin 1) designated spot (may use verbiage, if so, "designated spot")

And, as an IAABO member, if you continue to say, "Don't move", then you should hang your head in shame. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.

[Travelling Man]

OK, so this "psuedo-violation" must have had its origin somewhere in the primordial soup of in-game "coach vs. official" confrontations way back in the day. And, evidently it has morphed into a national [international] practice.

Why not just tell the player: "you can move if that helps your throw in angle"? What's the big problem with just notifying/telling them?

And if the opposing coach disagrees, show him/her in the rule book where it's allowed--or at least "not disallowed".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Travelling Man

Why not just tell the player: "you can move if that helps your throw in angle"? What's the big problem with just notifying/telling them?

Because, "That's your designated spot", and pointing, is a lot easier to say, it's prescribed in at least one mechanics manual published by a major basketball officiating organization, and it's 100% factual, by rule.

I do agree with JRutledge that we should not be conducting a rules clinic out there on the court.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Travelling Man

OK, so this "psuedo-violation" must have had its origin somewhere in the primordial soup of in-game "coach vs. official" confrontations way back in the day. And, evidently it has morphed into a national [international] practice.

Why not just tell the player: "you can move if that helps your throw in angle"? What's the big problem with just notifying/telling them?

That's for your pregame captain's meeting.