Crash…no whistle

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Adam

I disagree with this. I would say, most times, there should be a whistle if it's seen properly. I wouldn't call the exceptions rare, though.

I good legal screen can result with both players on the ground and no valid foul to call. As can a lot of loose ball contact where both players come from equally advantageous positions.

I have seen very few screens where both players have ended up on the ground. Normally the person setting the screen is prepared for the contact. They may be displaced, but they do not often fall. More often, the person being screened ends up on the ground.

In my experience, on loose balls where there is severe contact resulting from players coming into the play from equally advantageous positions, one player ends up on the ground and the other player ends up with the ball.

Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare. Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I have seen very few screens where both players have ended up on the ground. Normally the person setting the screen is prepared for the contact. They may be displaced, but they do not often fall. More often, the person being screened ends up on the ground.

In my experience, on loose balls where there is severe contact resulting from players coming into the play from equally advantageous positions, one player ends up on the ground and the other player ends up with the ball.

Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare. Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other.

If you think it rare for two or more players to end on the court due to Incidental Contact, then you haven't seen very many games.

MTD, Sr.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If you think it rare for two or more players to end on the court due to Incidental Contact, then you haven't seen very many games.

MTD, Sr.

I guess, if you consider 60+ HS/college men's games per season for the last 10years running not many, then you would be correct.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

I guess, if you consider 60+ HS/college men's games per season for the last 10years running not many, then you would be correct.

I have officiated boys'/girls' JrHS/HS since 1971; women's college from 1974-2008 including 18 college playoff games and 20 jr. coll. playoff games; men's jr. college from 1993-2008; over 25 years of Special Olympics including over 20 Ohio Special Olympis Final Fours; one Speical Olympics World Summer Games; at least 40 AAU and YBOA boys' and girls' national championship tournaments (including three YBOA Girls' National Championship Games); countless AAU and YBOA invitationals; and MTD, Jr., and I just officiated a girls' JrHS doubleheader this morning that easily had 20 cases of players going to the floor due to Incidental Contact while going for the Ball.

And during the 1990's (Billy and Padgett, not the 1890's, though after today's games with Junior I feel like it was the 1890's.) I averaged approximately 400 hunderd games a year at all levels.

I think I have your 600 hundred games in ten years beat.

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I have officiated boys'/girls' JrHS/HS since 1971; women's college from 1974-2008 including 18 college playoff games and 20 jr. coll. playoff games; men's jr. college from 1993-2008; over 25 years of Special Olympics including over 20 Ohio Special Olympis Final Fours; one Speical Olympics World Summer Games; at least 40 AAU and YBOA boys' and girls' national championship tournaments (including three YBOA Girls' National Championship Games); countless AAU and YBOA invitationals; and MTD, Jr., and I just officiated a girls' JrHS doubleheader this morning that easily had 20 cases of players going to the floor due to Incidental Contact while going for the Ball.

And during the 1990's (Billy and Padgett, not the 1890's, though after today's games with Junior I feel like it was the 1890's.) I averaged approximately 400 hunderd games a year at all levels.

I think I have your 600 hundred games in ten years beat.

Irrelevant. More games ≠ more wisdom.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

More games ≠ more wisdom.

This is very true. More games may result in bad habits more deeply ingrained.

[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 . . .

Originally Posted by johnny d

I have seen very few screens where both players have ended up on the ground. Normally the person setting the screen is prepared for the contact. They may be displaced, but they do not often fall. More often, the person being screened ends up on the ground.

In my experience, on loose balls where there is severe contact resulting from players coming into the play from equally advantageous positions, one player ends up on the ground and the other player ends up with the ball.

Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare. Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other.

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I cringe when I hear people pre-game that if bodies are on the floor we HAVE to have a whistle on the play. Basketball is a contact sport. But we all know that all contact is not illegal. Sometimes there is contact and it looks ugly but its possible nobody did anything illegal. Play on.

Yeah there's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid. I pregame if we have a block/charge which ends with both players on the floor then we should probably have a whistle. Obviously there are many other plays where two players may hit the floor from incidental contact, I think most of the pregames that mention needing a whistle for two bodies on the floor are referencing block/charge plays.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances.



Yeah there's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid. I pregame if we have a block/charge which ends with both players on the floor then we should probably have a whistle. Obviously there are many other plays where two players may hit the floor from incidental contact, I think most of the pregames that mention needing a whistle for two bodies on the floor are referencing block/charge plays.

There is not logical defense for your statement. Especially when you said and I qoute: "[T]here's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid."

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is not logical defense for your statement. Especially when you said and I qoute: "[T]here's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid."

MTD, Sr.

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

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.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

First: See the whole play.

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

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take.

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).

[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.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances

I think that there are plenty of times where two players can end up on the floor and have the contact incidental. But if it's on a screen, well, I guess I would have to see it to be convinced that it's possible to have a legal screen and that player hit the floor and not have a foul.