The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 05, 2015, 08:32pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 794
but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 05, 2015, 09:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantducky View Post
but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.
How can you call that a shooting foul when it clearly isn't??? There is no ambiguity here. In fact, what you just described is LEGAL defense. If you have any foul to be called, it would be on the shooter.

Calling what others, particularly coaches and players, is 100% wrong. Call the rules. Doing it right is only made difficult by those who deliberately do it wrong.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 05, 2015, 09:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 845
You have been wrong from the beginning and continue to be wrong in you interpretation. What other rules are you bending to make the coaches happy?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 05, 2015, 10:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 05, 2015, 10:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantducky View Post
You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that.
Distracting the shooter is not a foul (well, unless maybe its unsporting conduct or something).

I do see many newer officials who call it too tight, so the general comments you were given I can see.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 01:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 276
Because that's not the rule!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantducky View Post
but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.
First, you need to hang out with a better group of refs. Every ref that has earned my respect and almost all refs I work with in my area follows the rule book LITERALLY (the exceptions being those who either lack experience or don't have the desire to get better). Yes, there are places within the rules that we are supposed to use our professional judgement, such as when contact is a foul. But once we make that call the rules along with official interpretations of them (casebook, local interpreters, etc.) dictate what we do next, not the preferences of the individual referee.

Second, I can "not call it a shooting foul" because the rules say its not a shoiting foul. If they change the rule to include your scenario th en I will start calling it the way you suggest but until then I have to all it by the book as it is written today.
__________________
Its not enough to know the rules and apply them correctly. You must know how to explain it to others!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 09:35am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich1 View Post
First, you need to hang out with a better group of refs. Every ref that has earned my respect and almost all refs I work with in my area follows the rule book LITERALLY (the exceptions being those who either lack experience or don't have the desire to get better). Yes, there are places within the rules that we are supposed to use our professional judgement, such as when contact is a foul. But once we make that call the rules along with official interpretations of them (casebook, local interpreters, etc.) dictate what we do next, not the preferences of the individual referee.
I'm going to call shenanigans here.

No official worth his salt is taking the book literally on every rule.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 11:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
I'm going to call shenanigans here.

No official worth his salt is taking the book literally on every rule.
Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 07, 2015, 02:08am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).
That is NOT the case being discussed. Apples and naked mole rats.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 07, 2015, 04:09am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 View Post
Amen.

Rich1 (and Nevada, for that matter), if you saw A1 driving through the lane between B1 and B2 get fouled by B1 and B2 at exactly the same time (not in the act of shooting), would you call a multiple foul?

Because literally that's what you're supposed to do.

Try it and let me know what your evaluators and assignors think. Also, let me know how long it takes to explain to the B coach that A1 gets one free throw for each foul despite the fact that A1 was not in the act of shooting (Rule 10 Penalties Summary 6a(1)).
I have no issue answering this.
If that is what I clearly observed, then I would definitely follow the rule in administering the penalties. I'm absolutely certain that I would have the backing of my assignor for following the rules.

I have also explained some strange plays to coaches over the 17 years that I've been doing this. On some of those occasions the coaches have not been pleased about it, but as they know that what I've told them really is the rule, they deal with it and move on.

I don't see what the big deal is in calling something that is unusual or unexpected. That's called having the stones to make whatever call is needed instead of being afraid to do it right.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 11:32am
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantducky View Post

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.
So the defender did what defenders are supposed to do - try to distract the shooter so that he/she misses the shot...and you don't like that for some reason.

Then after the shooter lands (even on only one foot) the defender messes up and bumps into the shooter, and you are going to call a shooting foul contrary to the rules because that's what the coaches and players EXPECT???

Holy crap.

So do you also hit the whistle and call a foul anytime a player or coach yells "And 1" because that's what they expect?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 12:24pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantducky View Post
but I haven't

again. I don't know any refs who follow the rulebook literally. Not when the game is flowing.

so I'll ask you
A player goes for a jump shot. You, as the ref, see the defender moving forward into the landing space. You also see that clearly the offensive player is distracted by that. The offensive player lands and an instant later the defender hits into him, a clear foul. How can you not call a shooting foul in that situation? I'll call that a shooting foul because it is what the players and coaches expect it to be called. And many other refs would call that a shooting foul. If I go by the book literally, then that is not a shooting foul but I think that wouldn't be...kosher. yeah, kosher is the word.
If the shooter lands without hitting the defender, this is not a shooting foul. He wasn't in the landing space. Who's moving when contact is made? Because the way I picture your description, we may well have a foul on the shooter.

And I don't GAF what the coach expects to be called. The coaches who know the rules will expect this to be called by the rule.

Coach: Hadn't he landed?
You: Sure, but I still think it was a shooting foul.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 01:02pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 794
on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.

going back to that set shot. Player shoots without jumping. Ball is released and from around the head and player's arms go forward, defender hits the player's arms on the follow-through. Offensive player hasn't left floor. To me that is a shooting foul if it happens right after. A foul on the arms for the offensive player natural follow through after releasing the shot still impacts the shot. Listen, I care what the rule says. But I'm just saying, on these plays where there is a foul on the follow through/or right after landing(I mean super quick) then I'm looking at the whole picture and I'm seeing if it was part of the shot or not. If I see there was a bit of a delay or more of a screen out, then yes I'll call a non-shooting foul. I'm not going to think about whether or not the feet hit first because that is less important than watching everything else.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 01:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantducky View Post
on these latter examples that I do see called as shooting fouls, not the one in the original post, I think you can plausibility say you saw the foul occur before landing. If you have super slo-mo replay then you'll see that their feet hit first but as you said you aren't watching the feet/landing rather the whole play. So technically yes, their feet may have hit first but these would often be called a shooting foul because you are seeing the contact following the release and not thinking about whether or nor the feet landed.
This part is a very different argument then what has been said before. If a shooter lands, and is then fouled, but the official had incorrectly determined him to be fouled WHILE AIRBORNE, then he screwed up the call, but did nothing unethical. That's fine, mistakes happen, a lot of what we do is on the spot judgement. But to know that a player landed and still call it a shooting foul is entirely unethical, and why everyone is so adamantly against you on this.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 06, 2015, 02:00pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by frezer11 View Post
This part is a very different argument then what has been said before. If a shooter lands, and is then fouled, but the official had incorrectly determined him to be fouled WHILE AIRBORNE, then he screwed up the call, but did nothing unethical. That's fine, mistakes happen, a lot of what we do is on the spot judgement. But to know that a player landed and still call it a shooting foul is entirely unethical, and why everyone is so adamantly against you on this.
This. I'm willing to go so far as to say, if you can't tell whether he landed before contact, consider it a shooting foul. But that isn't what was presented initially or throughout this thread.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
last second shot fullor30 Basketball 24 Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:59pm
Shot in less than 0.3 mick Basketball 14 Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:59pm
Last Sec Shot nukewhistle Basketball 18 Sat Dec 29, 2007 09:55pm
last second shot stewcall Basketball 19 Tue Jan 21, 2003 09:54pm
Shot Clock Problem, Without the Shot Clock!! rainmaker Basketball 6 Wed Jun 05, 2002 10:09am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1