Where problems start... (video)
 

This game took place in the St. Louis area. The only write-up I've found online doesn't mention this situation. Other info:

*The home team was leading by eight at half
*The situation took place in the third quarter
*With no full write-up it's not known how the crew ultimately handled the situation
*The visiting (edit) team eventually won by 17
*The schools were playing for their division lead

A very good illustration of why calling the first foul is important.


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NxAr4_Wzp3k?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Foul on black in the first part of the video, then in the second part foul on black again for pushing whites arm away.

Then when they start wrestling there is only a whistle for the takedown. I wonder if black was given 2 points for the perfectly executed over the back barrel roll takedown maneuver.

Doesn't help that the Lead is asleep through the entire 2nd sequence, and the C casually walks in like it's a routine foul.

The Trail, who was further away is the first one of the scene...SMH

But looking at the T he was looking at the whole to do the whole time.

This

+1

In areas where we don't have 3-person it pains me to see it wasted like it was in this game.

What the hell were they watching? Because it wasn't their primaries.

A foul in the first play on black...calling this and a quick talking to about the extra activity probably prevents the next situation.
But...In light of no call there the biggest problem is that the lead doesn't rotate at the other end. If he rotates this play is right in front of him and maybe he gets the first foul (or the second or third). Too many times in this area officials don't want to rotate "until the ball settles lower than the free throw line".

Full disclosure: I asked JMF to post this video for me, the visitors actually won the game by 17...The penalties handed out were a double foul on black 11 and the white player that goes down. Then double technicals for the shoving after the play.

If the C is "on ball" the L should be closing down, looking to rotate, and then doing so. I agree with you - I don't get why some officials don't rotate more frequently or why they hesitate rather than just *going*.

In the 2nd play, it appears the lead is already looking across the lane. If your eyes are there for that long, you might as well go over and rotate.

As to the C, he's WAY too high on the play. There's no need for him to be above the FT line extended on this play as he would have had an open look from that position. He also wouldn't have taken himself away from the play at hand and may have been able to help get the first or second foul...

I'm also surprised at the nonchalantness displayed by the lead and center after the player gets tossed to the floor.

+1

+1

If I'm their supervisor/assignor my first question after seeing the video is, "You mean none of you saw Black #11 wrestling White #12 to the floor until White #12 hit the floor?

The conversation goes down hill from that point, starting with the no-call on the first play.

I'm okay with just the OOB call on the first play. I can see deeming that incidental contact as both players go for the ball from about equal positions and neither is placed at a disadvantage.
However, one needs to then be alert and observe these two players (the ones who tangled on the first play) closely for the next few minutes.
In a 3-man crew, there shouldWorst thing that I saw this week was Dustin Hall screaming in Skip's ear with about 1:30 left and not getting penalized. Your crew was in the lockerroom preparing for the next contest. It wasn't a positive moment for the local officials group to tolerate that behavior. never be an unobserved competitive matchup.

My thoughts as well.

Yeah, it's easy to say there should've been something in retrospect, but absent the subsequent nonsense...it's just an OOB call.

Exactly correct. Why the L didn't flex on this play is puzzling to me. :confused:

Who cares where the officials are on the court when this happens? It's a wrestling match. 1 of 3 *should* have it.

You're right somebody should have, but where all 3 of the officials are on the court is probably the reason nobody blew a whistle or even saw the at least 3 fouls leading to the take down until the white player is on the ground.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p2oxnwsfii...Untitled-1.jpg

They are both looking right at the action.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. After the ball is knocked away Black #11 reaches from behind - and through - White #12 and displaces him. It doesn't help matters that after the whistle White #12 swipes back at Black #11.

This isn't Monday Morning QBing on my part. When Nikki sent me the video I didn't know what I was looking for at first so I watched the entire raw clip (it was about five minutes long). When I saw Play #1 I thought that might have been the issue until I saw Play #2.

They are both looking right at the action.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying they're not looking at it, but T maybe doesn't want to come so far to call the 3 or 4 fouls leading up to the big ones from as far away as he is and lead is looking across the paint. C seems completely focused on the ball. I was told all 3 officials said they didn't see what happened until white 12 was on the ground.

I'm not saying your'e wrong, I'm just saying putting yourself in a better (correct) position makes it easier to call the foul(s) and prevent the subsequent actions.

C's tunnel vision was a big problem. He has a match-up in front of him but it's not even close to being competitive. A1 is holding the ball and given that C isn't counting I'll assume B1 was more than six feet away from A1. The next competitive match-up is the wrestling match ten feet to his right. A look over there - even for a second or two - wasn't going to hurt since it was apparent A1 wasn't going anywhere.

L was in virtually the same situation. The match-up in his PCA wasn't competitive...to the point that he was looking across the lane as was mentioned before. If he's looking across the lane and all three said they didn't see the take-down until White #12 hit the floor that means the L was watching the ball.

Bottom line - after the "extra-curricular" stuff that happened between those two knuckleheads earlier, a member of this crew should have had those two in his sights at all times.

If I was presenting this to a group, I would focus first on the L's failure to rotate. There is no good reason whatsoever for the L to not be over on the other side of the court. The C should never be on ball when there's an opportunity for the L to come across and make the C the T instead. There's no reason for the C to have to be on ball AND watch that competitive matchup closer to the end line.

Watching crews, this is the one thing I wish I could drill home -- I think it's partially from the fact that so many people here still work a fair amount of 2-person and that it's not common here for 2-person lead officials to work ball side.

I agree with the comments made on the crew mechanics in this OP. I have a couple of other comments after having viewed the clip on a computer.

Play #1 - The trail is inside of the ball line when the play begins. He has a good view of the action initially, but when the defender closes he can't see the remainder of the play. I've been taught that outside of the ball line is the place to be. There isn't enough in this clip to see how the T got where he was.

Play #2 - I noticed that when the play "blows up" all three officials go to the action. No one stays away to observe.

I'm not pointing fingers here because I was involved in a play this season where the entire crew (including yours truly) didn't function (i.e. - communicate) as we should have or as we pre-gamed.

Great points. Just before Play #2 turned into a wrestling match six of the players were on the strong side of the court and the L was still opposite. Instead of rotating he just stands there looking across the lane and, presumably, at the ball since he didn't see the confrontation. It really looked like a two-person setup at that point given his position and the high position taken by the C.

Does anyone know if they work 3 person during the season or just the post season in that area?

It certainly had the look of two officials not used to working 3 to me.

Nope, 3 man all year, this was not a post season game.

Positioning is still important IMO...yes this is something that any 3 of the officials can/should get, but psychologically speaking, it's easier to come and get this if it happens near you and you know it's in your area rather than reaching.

So if you are the L in clip 2 and you've flexed over, and you see V1 slap/push the defender's arm away like he did, what do you have? Intentional foul? Not enough to be flagrant at that point. Hopefully the body slam was considered flagrant.

The slap/push is a TC foul or at the very least you tell them "knock it off" while the ball is live.

That's where Play #1 becomes important. If the first play is called a foul against Black #11 - as I feel it should have been - or at least plants a seed in the minds of the officials because of the way Black #11 and White #12 got tangled up, the L or even the C responds to them faster on the next play.

I agree on the black foul on clip 1, I'm just curious how everyone feels the behavior (pre-slam) in clip 2 should be penalized. To me, it looks like a violent shove meant to start a fight and an intentional foul would be justified. Curious what others think.

Edit to remove reference to a 'T', I meant intentional foul.

Exactly...you have more than one opportunity just in those two plays to let them both know you're watching and to knock it off, even if you don't call a foul. I too would've had a foul on the first play and probably would have told them to knock it off then. And that's why I feel the L's rotation (or lack of rotation) is so important. If he rotates it puts him right there, he would have a better look, and maybe not question coming so far to call something, and both players would be aware of his presence. Maybe there's a jersey being held, or maybe black gets a TC foul for pushing his hand away or maybe you call a double foul, but any or all of that prevents things from happening the way they did.

I think that's hard to say from the angle we have. It looks like black shoves white's arm away, but we can't really see what white's arm was doing, they're definitely going back and forth. Possibly holding his jersey or maybe just a touch. I don't see calling a T for that but I can absolutely see calling a TC foul.

1. I've already said that I wouldn't call a foul for the two guys doing a little paddycake in clip #1. I would simply tell them to knock it off and then watch them for the next two or three trips up and down the floor. I might even verbally announce to my partners that these two have been warned and to keep an eye on them.
I think that calling a foul for this action during a loose ball in a boys game is being too picky. I also agree with the poster who noted that the T was in a spot from which he couldn't really observe the action. I call this straight-lined or having a closed look. My terminology is different from what he used, but we are saying the same thing.

2. Those who want a foul for the player knocking the defender's hand away are crazy. That doesn't make any sense. If you are going to allow a defender to put his hand on an opponent continuously, without penalty, then you better not penalize the player when he pushes it away. Again this situation falls into the how picky do you want to be category. If you whistle anything here, you better penalize the first illegal contact not just the response. I'm still not convinced that a whistle is needed at this point in this particular situation, but given the earlier dust-up and especially if these two were warned, I'm okay with a double personal here.
I tend to manage boys games more with my voice and proximity to the players. The game is generally better that way than when there are lots of fouls called and FTs attempted.

3. The first hard contact in the second clip or contact with two hands gets a whistle and I'd close right in. Easier to do if the Lead has rotated.

4. To the posters talking about a T in clip #2, I hope that you are referring to after one of the players hits the floor and the ball is dead on a previous foul because the rules don't allow us to toss out Ts for live ball contact.

This is what drives me nuts when coming from officials. There is no way that you can choose between a technical foul and a team control foul. The choice would properly be between an intentional personal foul and a team control foul.
Seriously, it's our job to know the rules!

I agree with the closed look - kind of - but I can't agree with "being too picky" on the contact. If they were in equally advantageous positions to start with fine, but B11 came from behind and through W12 and displaced him. That's a foul, boys' or girls' game.

It's not crazy based on what we can see. As has been mentioned we don't know whether W12 held B11's jersey but one thing we can see is W12 didn't have continuous contact with B11 at the moment B11 swipes his arm away. W12 had just contacted B11 with his hand and the contact doesn't appear to be inhibiting B11's freedom of movement. The first illegal contact - that we can see - would be B11 swiping W12's arm away, followed by B11's clamp on W12's arm, then the take down.

I was responding to someone else asking about calling a T here. I previously said I personally would do some talking to them. Obviously we don't have a T during a live ball for contact.

Your statements about it being a boys game are ridiculous - it's either a foul or it's not. The gender of the players in this situation are completely irrelevant.

This is who you should have quoted and responded to.

I mispoke when I said T, in an earlier comment I said intentional. My fault, but thank you for your concern.

And I'm not suggesting that a simple arm swipe be called an intentional foul, the player in black swipes/pushes hard enough to displace the white defender.

I know we both were speaking intentional vs TC vs double foul etc. It was no big deal, I should have responded back talking about Intentional or TC but if someone only wants to read certain responses so be it...

Also I'm not seeing a violent shove...it looks like prior to the slam that they are tangled up, and black gets untangled by taking white down.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

How exactly in this situation (the first play) does it matter if it's boys or girls?

You couldn't be more wrong in the last paragraph.

Boys and girls games are completely different.

Notice I said in THIS SITUATION (the first play). Boys and girls games ARE completely different and I never said that they weren't. I was referring to one play and whether or not I would call a foul on that particular play would not be based on the gender of the players.

Honestly we are obviously watching tape of a Varsity Boys game, why would gender even be a factor that is brought into this discussion? This tape is more a learning tool about preventive officiating, working 3 man, rotations, game management etc.

I agree and in fact this type of rough play and the retaliation is even more likely in a girls game. Although girls may wait a quarter or two to get their revenge...lol

And are even less subtle about it.