Would you call a T here?

[Mark Padgett]

"No, it's and 2 - for the other team."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then it most likely wasn't a foul and you correctly held your whistle.
I also agree with you about the manner in which the comment was made. You wrote that it was directed right at you and with anger. That's a T without a doubt. I'm not taking that lack of respect from a player.

I can ignore a kid saying "and 1" to no one in particular after scoring, but not getting in my face.

I agree.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's right. When a player is unhappy, you should change how you call the game so that he will be happy.

Players will "and one" every drive to the basket. It doesn't even get on my radar. Technical foul for this? How about looking at the kid and saying, "Knock it off." There, you addressed it and didn't interrupt the game.

Rich:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

As far as protecting a shorter....

Are you saying it is open season on tall players?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Are you saying it is open season on tall players?

Must have been a Freudian slip. I am about 5'8 and after I called it I heard a fan say "he has short man syndrome."

[ODog]

Not the exact same scenario, but if it makes you feel any better, Jeremy, last week I had a player yell, "And one, ref! And one!" after a layup with similarly little (or no) contact.

Even easier T there, of course, but ... it's not just you

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Definitely a technical foul.

Now since you have a player who is clearly unhappy with the amount of contact which you are deeming incidental, you may wish to reconsider your thinking on that point.

When players are airborne, they are at risk of injury and cannot control their balance when contacted. Thus officials are instructed to "protect the shooter." Basically, what this means is that we have to diligently scrutinize any contact on an airborne player attempting to shoot, pass, or even rebound. The amount of contact may be far less than when players are in contact with the floor, but may have much more impact upon a player's body movement, ability to make the desired play, or under how great of a risk of injury it places the player. Such factors form the difference between marginal and illegal contact.

Key points to help us determine the legality of any such contact are the positioning of the players prior to becoming airborne, verticality, and who is the initiator.

So rather than simply discount the player's expression of displeasure as an example of poor sportsmanship which one should penalize and then move on from, I would advise considering it an opportunity to re-evaluate how much physical contact you are allowing on drives to the basket and subsequent airborne players. What kind of feedback are you getting from the players, coaches, and your partners? Is this the only incident of an unhappy participant which you've experienced or are you getting a few complaints a game?

The start of your post is "Definitely a Technical," but then you immediately change to reconsider and reevalute the amount of contact. One or the other!!

I agree with the stance of not quite enough for a T for me. That is assuming that the statement wasn't accompanied by some theatrics, such as throwing his arms up in the air, or some stare-down. However, I also wouldn't let it go without a "that's enough" comment, or something similar.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by frezer11

The start of your post is "Definitely a Technical," but then you immediately change to reconsider and reevalute the amount of contact. One or the other!!

Why do you think it has to be one or the other? Can't we penalize the poor behavior of the player for his non-contact expression of displeasure, but then also evaluate whether his claim about illegal contact during the attempt had any merit despite its improper delivery?

[jeremy341a]

And now the rest of the story.

This took place towards the end of the first half with H up 20+

Coach asked me what he said. I told him and he give me a grin like I was a moron and said "well he did get fouled."

When the player returned later in the game. He did apologize.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why do you think it has to be one or the other? Can't we penalize the poor behavior of the player for his non-contact expression of displeasure, but then also evaluate whether his claim about illegal contact during the attempt had any merit despite its improper delivery?

Exactly.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

Coach asked me what he said.

It's not WHAT he said...it's HOW he said it.

[ColeTops25]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

And now the rest of the story.

This took place towards the end of the first half with H up 20+

Coach asked me what he said. I told him and he give me a grin like I was a moron and said "well he did get fouled."

When the player returned later in the game. He did apologize.

Earlier in the season I called a player for a traveling violation. I was the T and turned to become the L. The player looked directly at me and "bounced" the ball should height OOB, neither in my direction or my partner's direction. I T'd him. Coach asks me what he did. I said "coach, he looked at me and bounced the ball OOB, out of spite because he didn't like the call." He says, "yeah, but how high did the ball go?" I said "shoulder height." He says, "you're gonna T him for that?" Yup. As mentioned previously, it's not necessarily the action to me, it's the way the action is delivered.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

... Coach asks me what he did. I said "coach, he looked at me and bounced the ball OOB, out of spite because he didn't like the call." He says, "yeah, but how high did the ball go?" I said "shoulder height." He says, "you're gonna T him for that?" Yup. As mentioned previously, it's not necessarily the action to me, it's the way the action is delivered.

My answer would have been, "it doesn't matter", followed by him looking at the back of my head.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by ColeTops25

Earlier in the season I called a player for a traveling violation. I was the T and turned to become the L. The player looked directly at me and "bounced" the ball should height OOB, neither in my direction or my partner's direction. I T'd him. Coach asks me what he did. I said "coach, he looked at me and bounced the ball OOB, out of spite because he didn't like the call." He says, "yeah, but how high did the ball go?" I said "shoulder height." He says, "you're gonna T him for that?" Yup. As mentioned previously, it's not necessarily the action to me, it's the way the action is delivered.

No offense intended here, but imho, this conversation went on FAR longer than it should have.

[ColeTops25]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No offense intended here, but imho, this conversation went on FAR longer than it should have.

Right. I gave the coach 15 seconds of my time. Interpersonal skills go a long way in this avocation.