What would you do?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Rooster

In conjunction with the nonsense that was happening earlier (and then confirmed by the T early in the fourth Q) you don't think there was an element of unsporting behavior that needed to be nipped in the bud? FWIW I'm not married to the idea of a T here...

Do you think it was a non-basketball play?

It's a live ball contact foul. By rule it cannot be a technical foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's a live ball contact foul. By rule it cannot be a technical foul.

Unless you also rule there was an unsporting act in conjunction with the contact. It is always possible to violate more than one rule at a time.

[Rich]

I think that's a stretch. Otherwise, every time someone commits an intentional foul we'd be having this discussion. That two handed push in the back? Well, it all started with an unsportsmanlike decision / act. Doesn't mean a technical foul is the right choice in that situation, either.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is always possible to violate more than one rule at a time.

Yup, just ask my wife.

Originally Posted by Rich

I think that's a stretch. Otherwise, every time someone commits an intentional foul we'd be having this discussion. That two handed push in the back? Well, it all started with an unsportsmanlike decision / act. Doesn't mean a technical foul is the right choice in that situation, either.

Like I wrote, I'm not married to the idea of a technical foul here. Where I get hung up, however, is the non-basketball element of trying to trip someone as he goes by. Part of the hang-up: I could envision a coach arguing that "he was reaching for the ball."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rooster

Yup, just ask my wife.


Like I wrote, I'm not married to the idea of a technical foul here. Where I get hung up, however, is the non-basketball element of trying to trip someone as he goes by. Part of the hang-up: I could envision a coach arguing that "he was reaching for the ball."

Common, intentional, or flagrant are your choices. Technical foul is not an option for NFHS or NCAA games.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Common, intentional, or flagrant are your choices. Technical foul is not an option for NFHS or NCAA games.

Yep, got it. Thanks for helping me sort it out. I think 2-8-1 and 4-19-14 (the noncontact part makes it clear now) were throwing me off.

[Sharpshooternes]

How did you like the foul/blocked shot at 27:05?

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

How did you like the foul/blocked shot at 27:05?

I like the call. Looked like the kid nearly took the shooter's arm off at the elbow.

Originally Posted by OKREF

Yes the trail should hold his whistle

Correct.

Originally Posted by OKREF

I don't think there is anything wrong with the trail having a whistle

Wrong.

Originally Posted by OKREF

but just hold the signal to see what the lead has so we don't have conflicting signals

Certainly, this is standard for all double whistles.

Originally Posted by OKREF

there's no way I'm giving it up without knowing for certain my partner has picked it up

It's in his primary. Do you not trust him to referee his primary, especially a strong-side drive to the basket (going away from you) with secondary defenders right in front of him??

Originally Posted by OKREF

He may be officiating post play and not pick it up clean.

What post play? This is a drive to the bucket right in his lap, I'd wager he's not refereeing post play.

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm staying with the drive, especially when it's into the lane.

Which is totally fine, but you need to know what you as Trail have responsibility to referee and what your partner has to pick up. In this play Trail has the guy who gets beat off the dribble and BI/goaltending and that's it. As Trail you blew on a secondary defender block/charge situation. That is 100% Lead's call, and in two or three person there should be no way Trail ever has a whistle on that play. If Trail would have a whistle it would have to be for a hit on the drive prior to the block/charge.

I hear old dudes all the time pregame "if the drive starts in your primary you've got it all the way to the basket". This is old thinking and frankly just wrong by how we do things today.

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

How did you like the foul/blocked shot at 27:05?

Easy block. Ball first, rest is incidental. Consider which direction the ball went.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ODog

I like the call. Looked like the kid nearly took the shooter's arm off at the elbow.

He didn't come close to the elbow. He blocked the ball up top and the ball went directly OOB.

So you have not only an incorrect call, but an IC against the team that is losing by 16 points, and puts a 4th foul on their leading scorer. At the college level the official would be getting a phone call by the time he reached his driveway.

[APG]

Originally Posted by ODog

I like the call. Looked like the kid nearly took the shooter's arm off at the elbow.

This is a blocked shot IMO...look at the hand level of the defender to the ball...it's at the level of the ball....this is a big giveaway that the defender gets to the ball legally. If he gets the arm at the elbow like you're suggesting, his hand would be nowhere close to the ball.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

He didn't come close to the elbow. He blocked the ball up top and the ball went directly OOB.

So you have not only an incorrect call, but an IC against the team that is losing by 16 points, and puts a 4th foul on their leading scorer. At the college level the official would be getting a phone call by the time he reached his driveway.

+1. Didn't see the whole play. It was sort of like, "start, develop, fi...boop." Anticipated the call.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

How did you like the foul/blocked shot at 27:05?

I know why this was called a foul. Lets just leave it alone, please.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Correct.


I hear old dudes all the time pregame "if the drive starts in your primary you've got it all the way to the basket". This is old thinking and frankly just wrong by how we do things today.

Well, we old dudes say that here but what we mean by that is actually what you describe above....the T has the primary defender all the way in to the shot. It is NOT referring to secondary defenders. It is to contrast with the old way of thinking where it was 100% the leads for all defenders once it enters the lane.