Crash…no whistle

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Irrelevant. More games ≠ more wisdom.

In 25 years you won't feel that way, provided you don't have 1 year of experience 25 times.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Rich

In 25 years you won't feel that way, provided you don't have 1 year of experience 25 times.

The irony is that those who have "1 year's experience 25 times" . . .don't know it . . .

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The irony is that those who have "1 year's experience 25 times" . . .don't know it . . .

Everybody else does, though.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

Rule reference, 4-24-4
"In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball."

Fair enough. So if you were to see this live, and the defender bowls over the screener, and ends up on top of him on the ground, would you have no whistle here?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Fair enough. So if you were to see this live, and the defender bowls over the screener, and ends up on top of him on the ground, would you have no whistle here?

"Bowls over?" When I see that phrase, I think of a player literally running into, through, and over a screener.

The rule protects a blind-sided defender from being called for a foul on something he can't be honestly expected to see coming. Once he feels contact, he needs to attempt to stop. If he doesn't, I have a foul. If he does, it's incidental contact even if the screener ends up on the floor.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule protects a blind-sided defender from being called for a foul on something he can't be honestly expected to see coming. Once he feels contact, he needs to attempt to stop. If he doesn't, I have a foul. If he does, it's incidental contact even if the screener ends up on the floor.

Ok, so one more question out of this, if the defender attempts to stop, and knocks down the screener, but that defender is still on his feet and ready to move on, still no foul, or HTBT? Just seems against the spirit of the rule for a player to set a legal screen, get displaced to the ground, and end up disadvantaged. I would almost feel better not calling it if they BOTH end up on the ground, at least then I can claim no advantage gained.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Ok, so one more question out of this, if the defender attempts to stop, and knocks down the screener, but that defender is still on his feet and ready to move on, still no foul, or HTBT? Just seems against the spirit of the rule for a player to set a legal screen, get displaced to the ground, and end up disadvantaged. I would almost feel better not calling it if they BOTH end up on the ground, at least then I can claim no advantage gained.

Yes, that's the intent of the rule. It's the risk inherent with setting a blind screen against a moving opponent. The screen was successful in slowing the defender. That should be enough.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

1. Mark, we are not speaking in absolutes.

2. We are making general statements on plays. We used words and phrases like "probably", "good indication", and "in all but the most rare circumstances". That leaves wiggle room because as you know Mark there is always a gray area in certain plays. That does not mean that we cannot say that from experience a certain type of play implies a certain type of result.

3. Seeing the whole play and making a decision as to the play are irrelevant to what johnny d and I are talking about. (Sorry johnny I don't mean to speak for you).

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

I agree that if an illegal action has taken place then, if the officials are doing their jobs correctly, that illegal action will be seen and take appropriate action.

As I stated before:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take. And I would further add,

Four: If you, as an official are not doing One and Two, then why in the "H E Double Hockey Sticks" are you not?

MTD, Sr.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

[biggravy]

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten

Biggravy, your point is excellent. On a drive from one of the wings C or T can stay with it and likely get a decent look. My issue is the defender is a secondary one and must have come up from one of the blocks to challenge the drive. I was blocked from seeing whether he had LGP.

I gotcha. Again, in my neighborhood in Rome we pregame that L has that secondary defender on a drive. It sounds like you did what you could. I can see times in 3 whistle where two guys could maybe get straightlined. Pretty tough for all three to not get a look. Sounds like your C choked on his whistle and has some 'splaining to do!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

[Pantherdreams]

There can't probably be a fouls, violations, substitutes, timeouts or any other reason to blow the whistle. If you couldn't see a travel or double dribble would you call one because the crowd reacts and you don't know how that series of actions out of your area took place? Are you blowing the whistle because a team probably needs a timeout or a sub?

If you see it call it. IF you see it outside your area and you know your colleague saw it but let it go. Let it go. IF you see it and you think your partner(S) missed it and its going to keep the game undercontrol or save the crew call it.

In all of those cases you are seeing things you clearly identify as calls. In none of those cases are you seeing something that was probably something and probably needs to be called.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

Whether or not I have seen the play and whether or not a foul was called on the play are irrelevant. Fouls happen all the time that are not penalized for a number of different reasons and fouls are called on plays where no infraction has occurred.

Yes I can make the statement that because there are bodies on the floor so there was probably a foul without believing in any fallacy. It is called statistics and there is a whole field of mathematics dedicated to it. I have seen enough plays while officiating and watching basketball to make the statement, using statistics, to say that on these plays a foul probably occurred. That statement does not in any way mean that each individual play shouldn't be judged on its merits or that there should be some default so that an official on the game automatically blows his whistle because there has to be a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

Ding, ding, ding...we have winner. Unless you saw how they got there, two bodies on the floor is NOTHING.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

MTD,

Whether or not I have seen the play and whether or not a foul was called on the play are irrelevant. Fouls happen all the time that are not penalized for a number of different reasons and fouls are called on plays where no infraction has occurred.

Yes I can make the statement that because there are bodies on the floor so there was probably a foul without believing in any fallacy. It is called statistics and there is a whole field of mathematics dedicated to it. I have seen enough plays while officiating and watching basketball to make the statement, using statistics, to say that on these plays a foul probably occurred. That statement does not in any way mean that each individual play shouldn't be judged on its merits or that there should be some default so that an official on the game automatically blows his whistle because there has to be a foul.

Johnny D:

You are correct about the using the word "probably" in this discussion. We should be using the word "possibly". Probabilites do not apply in deciding whether a foul was committed or not. I know that because as a structural engineer with a double major in civil and mechanical engineering and a minor in matheatics, I have taken courses in mathematical statistics and modern physics.

Still you and too many officials are buying into the mind set that there because there are "bodies on the floor" there was a "possible" foul.

MTD, Sr.