Rebounding Contact (video)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

....

Check out the movement of the crew as the shot goes up. The C is backing out and the T is moving down. They both anticipated a rotation that never came. At the 6:40 mark the C Lead was in the A position then he started closing down. He made it to B then stopped but the other guys kept moving. The movement really put the T in a great spot but he just missed it.

The C has no business backing out anticipating a rotation. He should have stayed put officiate the shot then closed down to help with rebounding.

[BillyMac]

I'm not at all familiar with three person mechanics, but I can try to put a two person spin on this (I'm what you call, an expert, in two person mechanics, officiating here in the Land That Time Forgot).

Like BadNewsRef stated, the Lead blew his call. Period. Now, if I'm the Trail here, even knowing the difference between an ant, and an elephant, I'm probably going to hesitate for a split second because it's a call outside of my primary, and I'm probably thinking, "Why did the Lead pass on this play?". There are a lot of different animals along the animal spectrum between an ant, and an elephant. Maybe it was an American Bittern, for example? Maybe that hesitation is a little more than a spit second, and now I'm wondering if it's going to be a late whistle, even though I normally roll with a late whistle being a much better alternative than no whistle. While all this is being processed in my brain (my dendrites, axons, and synapses, don't fire as quickly as they used to), I spot the blue player with the ball, and now I'm thinking, "Good, we caught a break", and, as JetMetFan stated earlier, I pass on the play.

Later, during a break, I'm probably politely asking my partner what he saw on that rebounding play where the blue player fell to the floor. Any observers at the game will ask both of us the same question, and as the proverbs say, we hesitated, and now, we're lost, lost up a creek, without our paddles.

[JugglingReferee]

If in 2-person, and I'm the T when the C was, and I see it similar to the angle in the video, I give the L a chance to grab it, and if he doesn't, I will. If I'm in the position of the T in the video, I definitely grab this one.

If in 3-person, someone has to get it. Being a strong T means you grab this before bailing. The C can pick it up too. I do think the L was too close.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If in 2-person, and I'm the T when the C was, and I see it similar to the angle in the video, I give the L a chance to grab it, and if he doesn't, I will. If I'm in the position of the T in the video, I definitely grab this one.

If in 3-person, someone has to get it. Being a strong T means you grab this before bailing. The C can pick it up too. I do think the L was too close.

I agree. I thought the T gave up on the play too quickly. He starts moving down court too soon, IMO. From the time the shot goes up, his only movement is away from the play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I thought the T gave up on the play too quickly. He starts moving down court too soon ... From the time the shot goes up, his only movement is away from the play.

Here in two person Connecticut, we are taught, from the crib, as the trail, to always take a step toward the basket on a shot. As one gracefully ages, and loses a few steps (adds a few pounds, and gets more gray hair, not that I would know anything about any of those things), one becomes inclined to take a step back on the shot to get ahead of the next play, assuming a rebound, and a transition, down to the other end of the court. We (I don't now why I used the first person, plural personal pronoun here) have to constantly fight that urge.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We (I don't now why I used the first person, plural personal pronoun here) have to constantly fight that urge.

...I noticed you have a religous reference in your signature...maybe it has something to do with that?

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... As one gracefully ages, and loses a few steps (adds a few pounds, and gets more gray hair, not that I would know anything about any of those things), one becomes inclined to take a step back on the shot to get ahead of the next play, assuming a rebound, and a transition, down to the other end of the court. ....

This has nothing to do with age, instead it comes from a lack of training and/or discipline. Needs to be one of the basics instilled into new officials.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This has nothing to do with age, instead it comes from a lack of training and/or discipline. Needs to be one of the basics instilled into new officials.

Agreed, and it's a little painful to see it in a college game.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

This has nothing to do with age, instead it comes from a lack of training and/or discipline. Needs to be one of the basics instilled into new officials.

Bingo! We train our new guys (and all the old guys that want to keep their place on the pecking order) to take a "step in" on a shot (so even if they don't actually take a "step in"...at least they are not "bailing out")

...also, the "C" or "T", depending on 2 or 3 Whistle crew...should take a step in on the last Free Throw. The next time you watch a game...see how many officials actually use this mechanic.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Needs to be one of the basics instilled into new officials.

You must have missed this part:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in two person Connecticut, we are taught, from the crib, as the trail, to always take a step toward the basket on a shot.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The C has no business backing out anticipating a rotation. He should have stayed put officiate the shot then closed down to help with rebounding.

I need to correct myself: both the C and the T were backing out when the shot went up/while the ball was in the air. There was also an "area of intersection" moment on the shot since both the C and the T went up with the three-point attempt signal. It was shot from the T's primary but given the previous pass came from the C's primary I'd like to think the T would've been off ball and left that one alone.

Of course, the fact the C had dropped back into a trail position when the action got in front of him didn't help at all.

[JRutledge]

The main thing I have a problem with mechanically is that both officials go up for a 3 point shot (signal). That tells me either both are watching the ball or likely watching the same thing. Also the C is very high on this play and should have closed down. Almost the entire purpose to have a C is so that another official is there to rule on rebounding. On the other hand, I do not have as much problem for when the T left as he stayed until it was evident that the rebound was mostly over. That being if the T stayed a little longer he might have seen this play better and helped. But this is the reason I feel we as officials need to get away from the idea that the L cannot call rebounding fouls. The L should have been the main person to make this call.

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

we as officials need to get away from the idea that the L cannot call rebounding fouls. The L should have been the main person to make this call.

+1,000

The lead is eight feet away from obvious, heavy contact. He's not straightlined and is looking right at it, as evidenced by the last :10 of the video which reveal his position and body orientation. Outright brain cramp on the part of L on this play.

But I also agree with those wanting T to close and help - and with the idea that C is in horrible position to save the crew on an obvious foul.

[Camron Rust]

This may have been a case of "Possession Consequence" carried too far.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This may have been a case of "Possession Consequence" carried too far.

Back when I was a young official, with dark hair, this was a common unwritten philosophy among veteran officials here in my little corner of the Constitution State, i.e., "blue fouls white going for a rebound, but the ball immediately goes out of bounds off blue, just give it to white for an inbounds, no harm, no change of possession, no foul". I almost got caught up in this philosophy, but I've seen the light, and now just call the game like I'm supposed to, especially with every single play being filmed by dozens of cell phones in the bleachers. If it's a real foul, I call it. If it isn't, I don't call it, and just award the ball out of bounds for a throw in. The foul, or no foul, is called like I would if the ball never went out of bounds. The ball going out of bounds, off either blue, or off white, isn't part of the equation.

Some might still use this philosophy, so check your local listings in Rome.