Double lane violation

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

I said to him, "the rule states that...." He cut me off and said, "I don't give a s#|+ about what the rule says."
This really bothers me when these guys who have made it don't continue to read and relearn the rule. I am all about getting feedback. I constantly ask questions to varsity officials to get my name out there and be seen as a competent official. It is really frustrating when the feedback I get isn't even close to being right, all the time from all of the varsity officials. I have been tempted to just throw the rule book and call what they are all calling just to "fit in" but I don't want the time to happen when someone really important is watching and then just doing the wrong thing because everyone else is doing it.

Yes, there are many both here in my area and on this board that make up their own stuff, sometimes in direct contradiction of clear rules, and for no good reason. Just resolve to not be one of them.

Made up rules and calls in the age of video don't really work any more. 20 years ago (even 10) , you could just about do what you wanted because there was never video (or it was too poor to see much). Now, there might be 10-20 HD quality cameras at any given moment in a game. You usually can't make up an OOB call to give it to the "right" team in order to avoid a foul. If it is really, really close, you might be able to get away with that still, but the days where that was easy to do are really gone.

The double violation in your case is pretty clear. It would be hard to ignore the first one and only tag the second one. What are you going to say to the coach who knows the rule? If you make something up, what are you going to say to your assignor when the coach asks him about it? There is no good answer other than doing it correctly.

As long as you don't go looking for silly stuff, calling these things as defined will not get you in trouble. When faced with officials that like to make up their own stuff, just smile and let them be. No use trying to change people that don't care about doing things right. That is what might cause you more grief than just getting the calls right.

While I may not always succeed, I try to always do things the right way. I'm also in a position as an instructor in my association to impress upon new officials the difference between the way things should be and the way they may sometimes see things done that are not correct. I suggest that they do things the right way for the right reasons rather than follow popular, even successful, officials who wing it.

Now, there are times when the "right" thing to do might be outside the book, but that is the exception, not the norm.

[Rob1968]

The coment at the end of the Case Book play, leans towards a substitute shot, in the scenario in question, if the shot is missed. That's quite the opposite of the opinion of the Varsity guy who tried to instruct you . . .

Sometimes I have to refer back to advice given to me by a truly wise mentor: "That a person can perform a particular task, does not mean that he/she can teach it!"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The coment at the end of the Case Book play, leans towards a substitute shot, in the scenario in question, if the shot is missed. That's quite the opposite of the opinion of the Varsity guy who tried to instruct you . . .

Sometimes I have to refer back to advice given to me by a truly wise mentor: "That a person can perform a particular task, does not mean that he/she can teach it!"

It cannot be disconcertion if the defensive violation occurs after the shot is released. It's just not an option.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Adam

It cannot be disconcertion if the defensive violation occurs after the shot is released. It's just not an option.

I agree. My comment was specific to the Case Book play cited, in which the order is: defender first violates, and then the shooter violates.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

I agree. My comment was specific to the Case Book play cited, in which the order is: defender first violates, and then the shooter violates.

Fair enough, but the OP doesn't apply to that case play, which is how I read your post.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Adam

Fair enough, but the OP doesn't apply to that case play, which is how I read your post.

So, am I understanding the various sequences properly? --

A1 releases the shot, B1, along the lane violates, A1 violates = dbl violation, free throw voided, alternating possession.

B1, along the lane violates, then A1 releases the shot, then A1 violates = if shot is good, disregard the violations; if free throw is missed = possible disconcertion, or is it always disconcertion and substitute shot?

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Adam

It cannot be disconcertion if the defensive violation occurs after the shot is released. It's just not an option.

Assuming you believe time is linear

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Assuming you believe time is linear

I do.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

I do.

You have already changed your mind 14 years from now.

[BryanV21]

I've said it before...

Sometimes you have to separate the message from the way it is delivered.

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to take both aspects of the advice and throw it in the garbage.

There are idiots and a-holes everywhere... even in officiating.

Do things the right way. Perhaps you'll miss out on an assignment or two, or might have to wait an extra year or so to move up the ladder, but in the end you'll not only be a better official but you'll be a better person for not going against your morals.