Can Refs Help Improve Youth Play (Videos)

[ccrroo]

JeffM,

I used to be an "over the back" guy but a forum like this taught me better a few years ago. Those others are good, too.

Our failure to success ratio on charges is about 10:1 so I think we are shutting it down until something changes (we learn to teach it better or the kids develop more).

Though, I think they are athletic enough to attack/disrupt the dribbler like is shown in several videos, so our time might be better spent working on that. My mistake for not teaching that style (as I thought they were fouls).

Thanks.

Originally Posted by ccrroo

AremRed -
It almost seems like the dribbler isn't protected as much as the shooter? Because if that much contact is made on a shot, it seems like a foul is usually called (video 4 and 5).

Or maybe another way to ask it is. On plays 4 and 5, are you saying no foul because no harm was done (ie. the dribbler didn't lose the ball in that instance). If the defender had taken the ball, would it still be a no foul. Again, its seem like that amount of contact on a shooter would create a call.

I think you'll find the airborne shooter more protected from contact than the dribbler at every level. Refereeing the dribbler and contact from defender is a very tough play in terms of judgement. I can see why the referees passed on all those plays -- they are all in that gray area. These plays are a perfect example of why the game needs to be cleaned up with automatic fouls -- these kids are not skilled enough to be reaching in like that all the time. They see reaching in go unpunished all the time in college and pro ball and they think they are John Stockton 2.0 with their ability to get steals.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

AremRed -
It almost seems like the dribbler isn't protected as much as the shooter? Because if that much contact is made on a shot, it seems like a foul is usually called (video 4 and 5).

Or maybe another way to ask it is. On plays 4 and 5, are you saying no foul because no harm was done (ie. the dribbler didn't lose the ball in that instance). If the defender had taken the ball, would it still be a no foul. Again, its seem like that amount of contact on a shooter would create a call.

#2 isn't a foul because it doesn't meet any of the absolutes and the dribbler is not put at a disadvantage. Contact isn't a foul here. If the ball comes out or the dribbler is slowed or redirected then it's a foul.

Contact on a shot is subject to advantage / disadvantage, too.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1: Charge

Play #2: Nothing. I see a player reach around for the ball, but nothing that seems to affect the dribbler and his RSBQ at all.

Play #3: I see what could be a foul, but I see why it was not called. The dribbler tried to do something he was not in control to do and seemed to fall. I see the defender extend his arms, but I am not convinced he had anything to do with the control of the dribbler.

Play #4: I have a foul on the second kid after the spin.

Play #5: I do not have a foul on this play. A lot of grabbing for the ball.

Peace

Your answers would match mine most closely.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ccrroo

JRutledge,

Do you think the talent and fluidity development can be hindered in a very physical game?

I'm just wondering if so much contact wasn't allowed, it would allow the players to develop and the game would look a lot more fluid.

No. If you are a really baller or gym rat, you can play in just about any situations. The game used to be more physical and I did not see anyone that was good not being able to adjust.
Just thinking out loud.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1: Charge

Play #2: Nothing. I see a player reach around for the ball, but nothing that seems to affect the dribbler and his RSBQ at all.

Play #3: I see what could be a foul, but I see why it was not called. The dribbler tried to do something he was not in control to do and seemed to fall. I see the defender extend his arms, but I am not convinced he had anything to do with the control of the dribbler.

Play #4: I have a foul on the second kid after the spin.

Play #5: I do not have a foul on this play. A lot of grabbing for the ball.

Peace

I also agree with these.

On play 5, first, the camera angle and the official's angle are almost 180* different -- and that can make a lot of difference in what the official sees (And, I'm not sure how the play developed, but I would say the official was out of position). Second, while there was some contact with the Red arm, it was all / mostly after Black had placed his hand on the ball and was because Red was pulling away. Especially since Red kept the ball, I'm passing on any foul here.

[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.

[Pantherdreams]

I think what is causing you conflict is that you are teaching your kids to attempt to play well with feet and avoid creating illegal contact of any kind. This is good, but the problem is that the rules don't say illegal contact automatically equals foul. So while our kids defend properly you seem to expect a call everytime this doesn't happen. If it did any time anyone bumped or ran into each other or on every rebound there would be fouls called.

Illegal contact must be judged to be a foul or incidental.

Without going into all the criteria simply put then the 4 automatics others have shared with you the two criteria for determining that a foul are:

1) Does it create a clear an immediate advantage for the player commiting illegal contact or does it create a clear and immediate disadvantage for the player being contacted?

2) Is the contact excessive or leading to rough play?

If the official doesn't determine the contact to have met either of these criteria it is ruled incidental contact and play continues.

Some teams play like you no hands ever, trying to play without illegal contact. Others play at the edge of the rules risking fouls gambling that by playing a more physical game that the risk will outweigh the rewards. In most of the cases you sited what I'm watching is very subjective in terms of whether the player is gaining a clear and immediate advantage or disadvantage from the contact. Some officials might say they are impeded or its leading to rough play, but many will see players playing through it, or making bad decisions or being out of control anyway so determine that the contact is not creating a problem.

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."

[Adam]

Video 1: The official has a much better angle than the camera. There are two options from what I can see.

1. The defender leaned into the path as the dribbler was about to go around him.
2. The official holds to the myth that a player must be "set" to draw a charge.

I'd say the odds of both are about 50/50 given the video I'm watching.

Video 2.
The dribbler is barely phased by this, so it's generally a good no-call. From the camera angle, I can't even tell if contact is made. If there's no contact, there's no foul. If there's contact, but the dribbler isn't affected, there's no foul.

[Adam]

Video 3. Ref just missed it. It happens.

Video 4. I see what the ref saw. First defender is not likely getting a foul called.

Video 5. First defender: I see a lot of ball, hardly any contact between players. The contact that starts to trip the ball handler is made on the feet, after the defender has gained his position. That's rarely a foul on a defender. Second defender, there's some contact, but it looks like it was simply missed. There's not a lot of affect on your player with this second defender (although at that level, it's something I'd call if I see it), so th official may have passed since your player kept the ball.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JeffM

I recommend that you find Billy Mac's list of Most Misunderstood Rules.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...4-version.html

[Bad Zebra]

To ccrroo...kudos to you for coming here to seek advice and answers. Most youth coaches don't care enough to go to such lengths to get (correct) answers.
You are getting excellent advice from a goldmine of experienced and talented basketball officials.

The broader view...you should approach the leadership of your league and calmly and diplomatically suggest that they contract with officals who are experienced and agree to "teach". You have heard from those here that don't see their role as teacher at your level. I can assure you there are just as many of us are willing to teach young players (and coaches) during games. I got my start in youth rec ball and I will still gladly do it on occasion. If your league is clear about the experience and expectations, they will likely get officials better suited to the leagues needs. Clear communication UP FRONT is the key with any assigner. He or she knows which individuals would accept the role of teacher or trainer and which ones won't. Obviously, it's going to cost a little more but I contend that it will be worth it...less frustration among players, coaches, and parents.