Where do they come uo with these...

[Rich1]

I am often amusued at the "rules" coaches (and others) try to argue. Had this one yesterday in a tournament.

I call a free throw violation on B1 for crossing the three point arch before the ball hits the rim. Coach tells me its not a violation because he had not passed the free throw line until after the ball hit the rim. In his mind, the playercould leave on release as long as he did not make it past the free throw line extended before the ball hit the rim.

Another one of my favorites is the coach who argued with me that her player should get a third free throw because the defense violated even though the player made the free throw. "But that doesn't matter. They had a violation so we get another shot."

I also enjoyed the two coaches this weekend who constantly asked me "who did he foul" (duh, the shooter that's why we're shooting free throws now) and "who traveled" as if the answer would be something different than the player who had the ball. The worst part is that these were serious questions and not a coach trying to slyly complain.

No wonder they look at us like we are crazy when we blow the whistle. They're rule book is apparently different han ours.

[Mark Padgett]

About 10 years ago, I was working a MS holiday tournament and about midway through Q4 in a fairly close game, my partner called a flagrant foul on A1. It was his 5th foul. As my partner went over towards the table to report it, Coach B came over and said that since A1's fifth foul was flagrant, not only was he out of the game but he couldn't be replaced and team A would have to finish the game with four players.

My partner was rather new and came over to me for some help. I told him there was no such rule and that Coach B was either joking or he was just plain wrong. My partner went back and asked Coach B if he was joking! Coach B said he wasn't and that he was positive it was the rule.

I heard the whole thing and went over to the table. I used one of my favorite lines with the coach and told him that we could look this up. I said I had a rule book in my bag under the scorer's table and that if he was right, I'd give him $5, but if I was right, he had to go out into the parking lot and wash my car. I then put my hand out for a shake. He just stared at me, then turned around and walked away.

I have no idea how that coach got that idea into his head. I've never heard anything like it either before or after that game.

[JRutledge]

It is not a different rulebook, they just do not know what one looks like.

Peace

Had an AAU tournament game today where one team jumped out to a 9-0 lead in the first minute after some turnovers by the losing team. The losing coach yelled at me "is handchecking allowed in this league?" I paused for a second and yelled back "that's a loaded question!"

[Pantherdreams]

Classic coach thought is the "over the back".

C: He's going over the back thats a foul.
O: Over the back is not a call. Its only a foul if he's pushing.
C: But he's got him boxed out. He can't reach over him.
O: He can if there is no contact.
O: So whats the point in my kid boxing out.
R: Sounds like a coaching decision to me, not my area of expertise.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

As my partner went over towards the table to report it, Coach B came over and said that since A1's fifth foul was flagrant, not only was he out of the game but he couldn't be replaced and team A would have to finish the game with four players.. . . I have no idea how that coach got that idea into his head. I've never heard anything like it either before or after that game.

Maybe he's also a soccer coach.

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Classic coach thought is the "over the back".

C: He's going over the back thats a foul.
O: Over the back is not a call. Its only a foul if he's pushing.
C: But he's got him boxed out. He can't reach over him.
O: He can if there is no contact.
O: So whats the point in my kid boxing out.
R: Sounds like a coaching decision to me, not my area of expertise.

As a coach and parent, this is one that drives me nuts. The number of low level (below HS) refs who report "over the back" as fouls is shocking. Fro some, it's jus sloppy language where a player went through the opponent, but some are convinced that the player behind can't get the ball -- no wonder parents, players, and coaches get that idea.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Maybe he's also a soccer coach.

Soccer? That's the game for kids who can't use their hands.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

... refs who report "over the back" as fouls is shocking.

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

"Over the back", reported by an official to the table on a rebounding foul, is, in reality, probably a pushing foul. Over the back is not necessarily a foul. There must be illegal contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called, and this should be reported to the table as such.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Fro some, it's jus sloppy language...

This made my day.

[JWP]

Last season, I had one coach who was constantly complaining the about the other team "reaching." I told him "no contact, no foul." Two possessions later, my partner calls it, even reporting it to the bench as a "reach." Arrgghh.

After the game, we talked. Partner says that the defense wasn't playing defense "with their feet."

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Rich1

I am often amusued at the "rules" coaches (and others) try to argue. Had this one yesterday in a tournament.

I call a free throw violation on B1 for crossing the three point arch before the ball hits the rim. Coach tells me its not a violation because he had not passed the free throw line until after the ball hit the rim. In his mind, the playercould leave on release as long as he did not make it past the free throw line extended before the ball hit the rim.

I believe this is the NBA rule or close to it. So that is probably where he got that idea. The others?

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by JWP

Last season, I had one coach who was constantly complaining the about the other team "reaching." I told him "no contact, no foul." Two possessions later, my partner calls it, even reporting it to the bench as a "reach." Arrgghh.

After the game, we talked. Partner says that the defense wasn't playing defense "with their feet."

*Grrrrr!! hate it when my partner 'cow tows' to these type of calls. It makes me look like I'm too lenient when I do not make such calls (no effect on RSBQ, just defender with quick hands) and it causes the coaches and participants to develop the opinion that we are not "calling it the same on both ends" --which is their predicatable lament.
Whenever my partner ref(s) call 'reach', I pull them aside (during time out or half break or post game) and tell them that it is not a foul. Explaining to them that if you're calling "reaching in" when the that action does not affect RSBQ then you have "nothing" and furthermore, we are not calling the game in a consistent manner. In most cases, the partner responds with "that's what I've been calling for years". It will take a season or two for a ref to dis-embed such a staid mis-conception despite being shown the "light".

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

As a coach and parent, this is one that drives me nuts. The number of low level (below HS) refs who report "over the back" as fouls is shocking. Fro some, it's jus sloppy language where a player went through the opponent, but some are convinced that the player behind can't get the ball -- no wonder parents, players, and coaches get that idea.

Could be worse... I had an evaluator from the state observe one of my games last season. After the game he came into the locker room to talk to us, and one of his comments (to my partner) was that he missed an "over the back" foul.

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

*Grrrrr!! hate it when my partner 'cow tows' to these type of calls. It makes me look like I'm too lenient when I do not make such calls (no effect on RSBQ, just defender with quick hands righ?) and it makes the coaches and participants hold the opinion that we are not "calling it on both ends" which is their predicatable lament. Whenever my partner ref(s) do it, I pull them aside (during time out or half break or post game) and tell them that it is not a foul; explaining to them that if you're calling "reaching in" when the the action does not affect RSBQ then you have "nothing" and furthermore, we are not calling the game in a consistent manner.

I dunno man, yesterday I had a shitty girls game which developed into a string of held balls and elbows trying to clear space after rebounds. The next game my partner and I talked -- and we called a foul EVERY time the girls reached in, whether they got the ball or not. It took a few minutes but their coaches got the idea and they stopped reaching. I'm not saying reaching is a foul, but in an unskilled girls game like that it might as well be.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JWP

Last season, I had one coach who was constantly complaining the about the other team "reaching." I told him "no contact, no foul." Two possessions later, my partner calls it, even reporting it to the bench as a "reach." Arrgghh.

After the game, we talked. Partner says that the defense wasn't playing defense "with their feet."

I would have asked, "You realize if they steal it with their feet you have to call them for kicking, right?"