Ft, "t"
 

I called a foul on a player, 2 shots, I went to the table to report it. As I am doing so, the coach of the offending team, asks for an explanation.

Players line up and my partner begins the first FT. I explain to the coach that his player hit the arm of the shooter. Coach says, " I demand an explanation" I say, " I just gave you the explanation"

I turn to see the shooter begin his shooting motion and the coach yells " That's a bunch of crap" I turn to the coach blow my whistle and "T" him up, turn back and see the FT in the air. Shot misses, but since I blew as the kid was beginning his motion, I called the shot off and gave him 2 again.

Yes, I should have held my whistle until after the first FT, but emotion got the best of me.

Should I have give the FT shooter the first shot over again? I don't believe that the ball had left his hand when I blew.

Read the definition of continuous motion.

if the coach was loud enough - disconcertion is your catch-all.

Other than that lesson learned :).

Any time a HC demands anything he gets whacked.

If you had your back to the players and your partner because you were talking with the HC, why is your partner administering free throws without you in position?

MTD, Sr.

I tell coaches before the game that if they have any questions then feel free to ask. However, just as I will show them respect, I ask that they do the same for me.

In this case making demands is not respect, and therefore I would have ignored him. If he says another thing that could be construed by even the most thin-skinned referee to be disrespectful, then I whack him.

At that point I'm sure he'll want to know why, and I'd let him know that demanding an explanation from me is disrespectful, therefore he was ignored. Continuing in such a way led to the "t".

BTW, MTD is right... why would your partner administer the free throw while you weren't looking? Take note from that bit of the situation.

If it's the first of two or three free throws...especially working with 3, then I don't see the issue. If it's a 1 and 1 or we're on the final FT...yeah, get in position partner.

Terrapins fan just brought up a good reason not to administer a free throw until all officials are looking. So I don't understand being against it. Not unless you think awkward situations are fun to deal with.

I don't talk to the coach nearly that much, either before or during the game.

If I T a coach for something he says, he knows what it was for: whether he admits it or not.

As for shooting while I'm talking to the coach. I don't have a huge issue with it. Then again, I'm not turning my back on the court to explain a run of the mill shooting foul, either.

The coach is going to want an explanation...I'm not going to hold up the first of two or the 2nd of 3 while my partner is talking to the coach and out of perfect position. Get whatever you need to sayexplain during that period...get to your position in time for the final shot.

As to the OP, that's just a matter of needing to be a little more patient when giving out the T...unlike a personal foul, there's no need to call the T right away. Live and you learn...we've ball been there before.

Why can't the Trail official listen/explain whatever to the coach while standing in proper position and facing the court? To do otherwise is to put your crew in a bad situation because they are either proceeding a man down or having to wait.
This isn't a time-out, so there shouldn't be any delay in administering the FTs here. Don't be an official that either hurts your crew or unnecessarily holds up the game!

2nd half of the game...though that should never preclude one from still facing the court while conversing w/the coach.

In that case, how about having a quick word after reporting the foul while near the table and then turning and going to the proper position for the FT?
Isn't this what NCAA Mens officials do as they go opposite table after reporting?

No, we just ignore them, go opposite and then slyly give them a one-finger wave from the other side of the court with a shit-eating grin on our face ;)

Waiting for your partner to look before administering a free throw doesn't mean waiting for him/her to explain things to the coach. It simply means waiting until said partner is facing your direction and can see what's going on.

Continuous motion applies to personal fouls committed by the defense.

If you blew the whistle before he released the ball, then the ball is dead. He still has two FTs coming.

EDIT: This could also apply to an unsporting T on a player if you called it during continuous motion but it does not apply to a coach.

Defensive Player ...
 

Agree, but let's go to the rule, which includes the word "player", an important point in this situation:

"... but it (continuous motion) has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight."

Of course, the coach is not a player, and he most certainly is not a player playing defense (didn't that cost Woody Hayes his job?).

Thanks BillyMac for that distinction in this situation that had absolutely nothing to do with a foul by a player.

Dead Horse ...
 

I was just "over" confirming your 100% spot on, correct post. I'm sure that some Forum members, especially nonofficials, may have, just for a second, incorrectly thought that the continuous motion foul would not have made the ball dead while he was in the habitual motion of shooting the free throw. I'm not embarrassed to say I had to give it a second thought before I made my decision. Maybe I was the only one, but I probably wasn't? So now it's confirmed, a foul on a coach, or a substitute, or a team member on the bench, is not included in the continuous motion rule. The continuous motion rule only applies to a defensive player, not a nonplayer (there are only ten players), and not a player on offense. Exactly what's wrong with looking deeper into the rule, getting a more general interpretation of that rule, and with seeing the actual written rule, even when one is agreeing with the poster? Excuse me for being thorough.

So when your partner calls traveling in a game, do you confirm the call for the fans by also signalling traveling? :(

Thank God That I Wasn't Disagreeing With You ...
 

No. The Forum isn't a game, and you're not my partner, you're a fellow Forum member. As a retired teacher, I'm always looking for a teachable moment, and I found one in the original post, and in your correct answer followup post.

Common Courtesy ...
 

No. But if asked by a player, coach, fan, or even by the police officer in the corner, who may have missed my partner's signal, "What did he call?", I will politely answer, "Traveling". In fact, now that I think about it, if I'm far enough away from the inquisitor, I may actually give a "low key" traveling signal.

Thanks. I guess the 5 years before you got here, there must have been a lot of members who had their doubts about my posts. Glad you're here now to confirm everything I reply to.

I Simply Added The Word Player, And This Is What I Get ???
 

I liked your post. I agreed with your post. It was your post that helped me to decide what the correct interpretation was. I never doubted the intent of your post. I knew that, "by the defense", in your post, meant by a defensive player, but I just wanted to expound upon that a little, and include the actual wording of the rule (with the word "player"). I'm sure that 99.9% of Forum members that are officials fully understood your post, i.e., that you meant player, but I'm pretty sure that some nonofficial Forum members may have thought, even for a second, that the coach of the team on defense may have to be considered in the application of the continuous motion rule. In fact, the original poster may have had that question in his mind when his situation occurred:

I noticed that you went back and added something (that I also liked) to your post. Did you doubt something stated in your original post? Thinking that something in your original post may have needed further clarification? If not, why expound upon the original post?

As a retired teacher, one thing that I learned about teachable moments: Carpe diem (make use of the day).

You know what really makes this series of posts so odd? It's that BktBallRef, and, later, BillyMac, are both, I believe, by rule, 100% correct.

Really? I'm beneath you, eh?

You know what, I'm not wasting anymore time with this. You're the reason I rarely post here anymore. Thanks for reminding me of that.

No Offense ...
 

No. I'm just saying that it shouldn't only be teachers that understand what teachable moments are. You, in fact, may be a teacher. I fully apologize if any part of my original statement offended you. I will delete the part that I think that you found to be offensive. Debates? I enjoy. Offensive comments? I detest. That not how I like to roll here on the Forum. Ask anybody.

Trying Not To Be Offensive In Connecticut ...
 

You post a good, agreeable, answer. Someone posts to clarify your answer for nonofficials, and you pick up your ball and go home? You certainly have a right to be upset with my offensive (not intended) post, which is why I deleted it, and apologized, but why deprive us of your presence on the Forum for simply agreeing with you, and clarifying something in a followup post (I'm not being sarcastic here)?

You didn't think the word "player" was necessary. I did. And for that we have to play Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots? Over one word?

If the roles had been reversed, I would have simply responded, "Thanks for the clarification", or maybe not responded at all.

An award winning former teacher is probably familiar with the words inane and redundant.

jmo

Players Play, Coaches Coach ...
 

The original post seemed to question whether, or not, the "defensive" coach was involved with the continuous motion rule. Don't you think that a few others may have questioned the same thing? I was leaning that way, but I wasn't 100% sure until I read BktBallRef's post, and then looked up the actual wording of the rule. He was 100% correct. Coaches aren't players. Why not simply state that for nonofficials? Continuous motion only applies to the players on the court.

Yes, I Said It, Maybe To A Fault ...
 

Science teacher, now an analytical chemist, not an English teacher. Which is why I'm so exacting, with precise, and accurate, descriptions of situations, events, rules, and interpretations. Maybe to a fault in officiating, but I get paid to be accurate, precise, and, yes, redundant, in my day job. Unfortunately, there is some carryover.

Billy, precision is overrated. You can repeat the same thing over and over again and still be wrong. Maybe your equipment isn't calibrated correctly. Your measurements can still be precise and at the same time be nowhere near accurate.

I didn't know continuation had anything to do with anyone other than the person who was the one taking the shot. Who cares if its the coach, mascot, cheerleader, fans, or batman.

Another Scientist ???
 

Which is why I have to be both precise, and accurate, or I lose my day job.

Although not as precise, and accurate, as some may think. One of my biggest surprises moving from academia to the real world was that in the real world of environmental (production, not research) analytical chemistry, I am considered to have replicated an analysis of a sample if I come within twenty percent, plus, or minus (a total range of forty percent), of the replicate (duplicate) sample. That's like saying that eighty dollars is the same as one hundred and twenty dollars. I tried that out at my local supermarket the other day. As you would expect, that didn't go over very well there.

Think about that the next time you take a sip of tapwater. Plus, or minus, twenty percent.

Carpe Diem ...
 

Well, for starters, it does. If the shooter's teammate fouls (team control foul), continuation doesn't apply (ball not released, no basket if it goes in, even while in the act), but if an opponent of the shooter fouls, then continuation does apply (ball not released, but while in the act, count the basket if it goes in). In most cases (not a player control foul), count the basket if the ball is released, and goes in, no matter who fouls.

Damn, I love these teachable moments. Who wants to clap the erasers? How about playing some kickball at recess today?

Note: If anyone would like expound upon this, or clarify this post, please feel free to do so. Especially if I'm wrong, but even if I'm right. Go ahead and knock yourself out.

Thanks Billy,
I am an official and hadn't made the connection about continuation after a foul by a non player. Thanks a lot.

I need to learn to be more patient in these situations. I know that.

Thanks for all the feed back.

So, I am about 30 games into the season, ( I did 10 games in 4 days this week) and only 1 "T". BTW, I the coach won that game by 1 point, the "T" cost him 4 points ( could have been 6 )

I did his game this Saturday and he won again by 1 point.

Polite In Connecticut ...
 

Be sure to thank BktBallRef. It was his post that confirmed my initial interpretation.

Somehow we've gotten to the point that if someone disagrees with you, you go off on them... and if they agree with you, you also go off on them.

I guess when BBR speaks, we should all just stop discussing, for fear of offending him.

I suspect (although who knows... maybe you've got the nicest coaches in the country) that if you only have 1 T in 30 games, you are likely letting too much go.

1 tech in 30 games may not be a bad thing. As you think back on those thirty games did you have partners issue techs or are there instances that you wish now you had handled with one. If so, then use it as a learning expeience. If not, then perhaps you have done well. Self reflection on your performance (maybe even make some notes) is a great way to get better.

To give some perspective, I have worked 73 games thus far this season and have only issued 9 techs. I am usually quicker to issue stern warnings than most my co-officials but seldom have to go to the T after I do. The coaches know I mean business.