Foul or incidental contact?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... some of us have been very strongly encouraged, under local, state, or international association social media guidelines, to remain anonymous on the internet.

From IAABO (International):

With the onslaught of social media (Facebook, LinkedIn etc.) there are many ways for officials to become controversial very innocently. Officials love to talk, I am sure you know the old saying "tell a ref tell the world". How often does the conversation between officials start with "I had this play" and then we continue with one upsmanship and "I had this play" and so on. We were always concerned when we were having an adult beverage in an establishment talking basketball, being heard by someone as we made comments about a coach, player or even rowdy fans. Why wouldn't we have the same concern today where, instead of being out in public making comments we now make them online? The danger again is that we do not know who views these comments, and we do not know what they will do with these comments.

In regards to basketball, I have watched officials put up a play online and ask for comments from others and there may be responses from a number of officials that give their "opinion", many of which are incorrect rulings. It amazes me that officials did not ask their own interpreters who have been IAABO trained and most likely can provide the correct response and rule citation. The interpreter also has another resource and that Is Peter Webb who is IAABO's Coordinator of Interpreters and who will respond to each and every question with the correct ruling and rule reference within 48 hours.

My concern is that an errant comment made by an official can come back to haunt them, in fact most Division 1 conferences have added this clause to the officials contract. "The office must refrain from any public criticism of the conference, Conference staff, coaches, student athletes, and Conference athletic departments. This criticism includes communicating with the media, and other basketball officials, as well as any method of social or electronic media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, email etc.). Any violation of this policy will result in disciplinary action being taken, which could include one or more of the following actions: private reprimand, suspension or termination".

This may filter down to the state athletic associations in the near future, thus the point of this article is to give our officials a heads up on what is happening in our officiating world. You just might want to give some thought to the above before you make that next "click".

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I've used the term in response to NBA discussions where the term is used. Otherwise, I pretty much stopped using that term here 3 or 4 years ago.

I pointed out the foul was a blocking foul because the coach seemed to be concerned that his player was called for an illegal screen when he didn't set a screen. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum. Thanks.

AremRed:

If that's what he wants, then that's what you should do, unless you wish to have posts edited or deleted.

I'd do the same for any other member, BTW.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

AremRed:

If that's what he wants, then that's what you should do, unless you wish to have posts edited or deleted.

I'd do the same for any other member, BTW.

I do not know how anyone can expect to only be called something when people happen to know who you are? Some of us have been here a very long time and shared who we are on other forums or correspondence. I am not trying to get in the middle of their dispute, but if someone refers to me by my name other than what is listed, I do not see how I can control that, other than ignoring that person. And even then that is not how I will be referenced if others are talking. I seriously do not know how we can expect to control something like this even if we are expecting cordial conversation.

Peace

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Since there's actually no foul that's called an illegal screen, your player was called for a blocking foul. It makes no difference whether the dribbler "used the screen" or not. If your player as moving and blocked the defender's path, that's a foul.

Be polite with our guest, there are multiple posts in your history where you wrote "illegal screen".

C'mon BktBallRef you know if the defender gets faked out and goes the wrong way and runs into another offensive player who is about to set a screen it's probably incidental.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

#2, I wasn't impolite.

Not directly, but correcting a publically declared coach on "rulebook terminology" (for which you are a known stickler) when you use the same phrase seems kinda hypocritical.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not know how anyone can expect to only be called something when people happen to know who you are? Some of us have been here a very long time and shared who we are on other forums or correspondence. I am not trying to get in the middle of their dispute, but if someone refers to me by my name other than what is listed, I do not see how I can control that, other than ignoring that person. And even then that is not how I will be referenced if others are talking. I seriously do not know how we can expect to control something like this even if we are expecting cordial conversation.

Peace

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

Originally Posted by Adam

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

Polite, yes. Is this a bannable offense though?

[Raymond]

What's so difficult about using a person's user name? No one cares if know the person's real name, it doesn't impress anyone and it comes off as douchey, imho. To me it's the same as outing what level or conference someone works even though it may be public knowledge elsewhere.

It's called forum/internet etiquette. And those who argue about its enforcement really need to explain why it's so important to bring so much attention to themselves.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's an individual preference. If someone makes the request, it seems only polite to oblige. Sometimes, things really are that simple.

I agree with you, but I guess I do not feel that should be expected when you are so public like me or others here. Then again this is coming from a person that uses my real name, so I guess I do not see the big deal. But as you stated, I would not call someone anything they did not wish to be called. And I know many people here personally through real life or some other internet or social media outlet.

I was not trying to take this discussion in another direction. I just was curious that is all. Never thought much about it either way.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Polite, yes. Is this a bannable offense though?

You weren't banned. Move on.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I've used the term in response to NBA discussions where the term is used. Otherwise, I pretty much stopped using that term here 3 or 4 years ago.

I pointed out the foul was a blocking foul because the coach seemed to be concerned that his player was called for an illegal screen when he didn't set a screen. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.

I would appreciate it if you would refer to me as BktBallRef when addressing me in this forum. Thanks.

I was just concerned whether there should have been a foul or not. But, he was definitely charged for an illegal screen. The ref punched, pointing the other way while shouting "illegal". That's the extent of the mechanic(s) used, and that's standard around here for illegal screens.

Also, as an aside, I looked it up and the phrase "Illegal Screen" was used in the NFHS 2011-12 case book. Specifically:

"B1 is charged with an illegal screen against A2"

So, I think it's a term the NFHS is ok with.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

"B1 is charged with an illegal screen against A2" So, I think it's a term the NFHS is ok with.

The term "illegal screen" is fine, but there's still no signal for it. The punch is for all team control fouls (except a player control foul, but that's a controversial topic for another thread) not just illegal screens.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The term "illegal screen" is fine, but there's still no signal for it. The punch is for all team control fouls (except a player control foul, but that's a controversial topic for another thread) not just illegal screens.

Frankly, I don't see an issue with the terminology here. I don't see this as one of those terms that confuses people (like "moving screen") into thinking something is illegal when it's not.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Frankly, I don't see an issue with the terminology here.

Nor do I.



NFHS Signal Chart:

https://nfhs-basketball.arbitersport...010%5B1%5D.pdf

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I was just concerned whether there should have been a foul or not. But, he was definitely charged for an illegal screen. The ref punched, pointing the other way while shouting "illegal". That's the extent of the mechanic(s) used, and that's standard around here for illegal screens.

Also, as an aside, I looked it up and the phrase "Illegal Screen" was used in the NFHS 2011-12 case book. Specifically:

"B1 is charged with an illegal screen against A2"

So, I think it's a term the NFHS is ok with.

Coach, the point I was trying to make, before all the drama with AremRed unfolded, was your player can be guilty of a blocking foul whether:

1- he actually set a screen or not
2- whether the dribbler used the screen or not.

Without being able to see the play, we can't tell you whether a foul occurred. But yes, it's possible.