Can Refs Help Improve Youth Play (Videos)

[DRJ1960]

I played and coached and "parented" until my youngest graduated High School. When I started officiating I was stunned at the difference in the way officials see the game. I found that the people "in charge" (ie the ones who write the checks) decide the often unwritten rules that govern the games. Understanding these interpretations make all the difference in the world as you watch officials work games. The reality is that I now call games in the same manner that infuriated me when I was a player, coach and parent. (Video #2 is a prime example of where I would scream "Where's the foul?" and today I wouldn't have a whistle).

[ccrroo]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

(Video #2 is a prime example of where I would scream "Where's the foul?" and today I wouldn't have a whistle).

I would like to think that I would blow the whistle twice and the players would learn to stop making that move. That's probably wrong (per the rules) and naive. And no one would ever want to work with me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

First video. It has to be a charge/block right? (LOL).
So my thoughts. We're trying to teach 7th graders how to take a charge. They have a right to space especially with an out of control offense that lowers their shoulder. So why wouldn't a ref give the benefit of the doubt to this player:

So maybe it was block. But why wouldn't this reach be called in video 2. In video 1 the defender is trying to play nice fundamental defense. In this video 2, he just plainly reaches into the offenses body. No foul called.

Hard to tell for certain from the angle in the video but I see a defender that was leaning, to some degree, beyond the position he obtained. That could make it a block. If your shoulders are not above your feet, your shoulder is not in legal position. As for the lowered shoulder by the offense....don't care. If the defense isn't legal, it doesn't really matter much unless it is extreme. Only the defense has rules governing legal position. If they're not in it and there is body to body contact, the foul is on the defender. Most players, when running or making a move, have their shoulder lowered to some degree.

Originally Posted by ccrroo

In my naive world, at the 7th grade level, as a ref --- I think I would be encouraging the defense in video 1 vs the defense in video 2. Yet it's not called that way. The sloppy way is rewarded.

In video 2, I can't tell you for sure that there was even contact. There could have been...but it is inconclusive.

It is all about angles. When you have the wrong angle, a lot of things look like something they're not.

[deecee]

It's middle school ball. If we were to call every single time there was any contact or anything mildly questionable the games would take 4 hours. I like JRUT don't teach, I don't care to teach, I'm not paid to teach.

I don't do these games because they bore me to that. With that being said, a lot of guys do these games just for the money, or they are brand new. You're not really getting varsity refs, in fact barely freshman level guys on many occasions.

I would recommend you get a rule book and read it. That's the best way to learn the rules. But my assessment of all these plays is similar to what others have responded with.

There is no such thing as over the back, and there is no such foul for just lowering the shoulders, fouls rely on one constant only. CONTACT. In the absence of contact, you have an absence of a foul.

[ccrroo]

Apologies for not getting the quote feature to work. I'm trying to figure it out.

"If we were to call every single time there was any contact or anything mildly questionable the games would take 4 hours."

Or maybe the coaches and players would adjust.

"and there is no such foul for just lowering the shoulders,"

Agree 100%. I would just suggest that lowering a shoulder and initiating contact with a defender, even if he's isn't in perfect position, would make for a better game. I wish the rules were worded more that way -- who initiated the contact.

"fouls rely on one constant only. CONTACT. In the absence of contact, you have an absence of a foul."

I would argue that CONTACT isn't a constant. Sure no contact, no foul. Unfortunately, when there is contact, then there might be a foul.

Originally Posted by ccrroo

Unfortunately, when there is contact, then there might be a foul.

So? It would be equally true to say "when there is contact there might not be a foul."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

"and there is no such foul for just lowering the shoulders,"

Agree 100%. I would just suggest that lowering a shoulder and initiating contact with a defender, even if he's isn't in perfect position, would make for a better game. I wish the rules were worded more that way -- who initiated the contact.

That would be a very different game. Initiating contact simply isn't a foul and doesn't even determine who a foul is on. There are pretty clear rules on who can do what and it isn't about initiating contact. When a player does something illegal and there is contact, then there is a foul. There are many legal ways for contact to occur.

For the most part, the rules governing contact apply to the defender. We spend 95% of our time watching the DEFENDER. If there is contact sufficient for a foul, they must be legal, if not, foul on the defender regardless of who initiates the contact. If they're legal, then the foul is on the offense.

[ccrroo]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In video 2, I can't tell you for sure that there was even contact. There could have been...but it is inconclusive.
.

Realize the camera angle is no good, but in video 2 there was contact. I was directly across from the play. At the age and ability, I don't see how a kid makes that move without contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

On #2, it's frustrating that it's a foul if the ball comes out and otherwise it's not. When the defense is constantly doing that move, it impacts how the offense attacks. They have to be much more guarded. It affects the entire game.
Also, if the outcome matters on whether something is a foul, than video 1 should be a no call because the offense isn't going to make that out of control shot.

One needs to realize that the simple fact that there is contact does not mean there's a foul. Basketball is a contact sport. Save for some very specific situations (and depending on the rule set), contact by either team has to place the opponent at some sort of disadvantage/some sort of advantage has to be gained by the offending team.

Your extrapolation to the first video wouldn't hold up. If one rules the contact a charge (and it probably was), it's justified because the player taking the charge has been disadvantaged because he can not participate in normal defensive movements because he was knocked to the floor. If one was the rule a block, it would be justified (as far as calling it illegal contact) because the contact clearly affected the shot.

Originally Posted by ccrroo

Realize the camera angle is no good, but in video 2 there was contact. I was directly across from the play. At the age and ability, I don't see how a kid makes that move without contact.

Again, contact in of itself is not a foul. Did the contact by the defense cause a disadvantage for the dribbler? On these types of plays, the calling official would be looking for the rhythm, speed, balance, or quickness of the offensive player being affected. It's not clear that either of those were affected.

[dsqrddgd909]

I admit I'm "That Guy" on the coaching box rule, but does anyone besides me have an issue in the the very first video with both coaches off the bench? (1 kneeling and 1 standing?) Would you pass on it in youth level but talk to the bench in the Varsity level?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

I admit I'm "That Guy" on the coaching box rule, but does anyone besides me have an issue in the the very first video with both coaches off the bench? (1 kneeling and 1 standing?) Would you pass on it in youth level but talk to the bench in the Varsity level?

I wouldn't care at any level...unless the assistant was calling attention to himself, if you know what I mean.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

I admit I'm "That Guy" on the coaching box rule, but does anyone besides me have an issue in the the very first video with both coaches off the bench? (1 kneeling and 1 standing?) Would you pass on it in youth level but talk to the bench in the Varsity level?

Yes I care. I only care in the sense to set a standard. I do not want assistants standing or violating the rule and like this tape, I am shown not applying the rule. I do not T these just because, I just correct it by talking to the coach. The coaching box has been a big deal in our state and I have let coaches know we will enforce this rule if they put us in that situation.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes I care. I only care in the sense to set a standard. I do not want assistants standing or violating the rule and like this tape, I am shown not applying the rule. I do not T these just because, I just correct it by talking to the coach. The coaching box has been a big deal in our state and I have let coaches know we will enforce this rule if they put us in that situation.

Peace

I'm with you if he's constantly off the bench. I'd probably notice that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

I admit I'm "That Guy" on the coaching box rule, but does anyone besides me have an issue in the the very first video with both coaches off the bench? (1 kneeling and 1 standing?) Would you pass on it in youth level but talk to the bench in the Varsity level?

I have a problem with an AC up AND showing a reaction to the call.

[Adam]

If he's up a) consistently or b) coaching me, it's going to get addressed.

HC will likely get a polite reminder in "a". In "b", there may or may not be a warning before a technical foul.