It has been a little over a month now in our new basketball season. All of us by now should have the bugs worked out of the travel schedule, and are showing up each night with vigor in our games. And, what an opportunity we have each night we work - to get the call right!
It was no secret that this season, at least at the beginning, was going to be different in the foul counts. So much anticipation and preseason expectations were set at the college and high school levels, with new points of emphasis and changes in rules. The national media was all a flutter about the new attention put on the dribbler and his/her defender. And, they continue to "delight" us with highlights and video of plays being called both ways, and then of course their mind numbed commentary on such.
What is of keen interest though, is that so much of basketball occurs away from the ball. In fact, assuming the dribbler is guarded in a man-to-man defense, and is not double-teamed, that leaves 80% of the players on the court somewhere else and doing something else! A great question to ask is, "What's going on OFF ball?"
The answer will astound you-if you look! I would venture to say that 80% of the game occurs, where 80% of the players are located. It is important what is going on with the ball-that is for sure. But generally speaking, the ball does not get us in trouble as referees, but players certainly will. Remember when you first started, and you had the tendency to "ball watch" on the floor. How embarrassed were you in an early clinic when you had a fast break play to the basket, a quick pass and score, then look up and see players getting up of the floor. What answer did you give the observer/clinician?
The point is, "there is a ton of stuff happening away from the ball." And, not all of it is legal. In fact, some of it can get down right nasty depending on the situation. Grabbing, pushing, elbowing, displacing, hooking, poking, and yes-even punching. There are a ton of consequential things going on inside the paint on post, on rebounds, on the wings with cutters, etc.
Elite officials, and those moving up have found ways to make sure they are keeping there eyes on their primaries, which includes looking in off-ball when necessary. You can see this when you observe them-as many times body language and head/eye location tell you they are not "following the ball."
Here are a few suggestions that come from a "collage" of articles I have read over the last few weeks concerning off ball calls. First, you remember the move to improve suggestion your clinician gave you? Turns out, it is excellent advice is it not? Well think about it in your off ball positions. If you are standing still too much-is it possible you are watching the ball too much? Said another way, do players in the paint, or on the wings stand still? No, of course they don't. If they do, they're probably coming out on the next dead ball. Use your move to improve adage to make sure you are looking through players without the ball.
Second, look for the off-ball call early. Not saying make something up-that is stupid and lowers your credibility with everyone, including your crew. But, make sure you work a good "slot.". Look for those early cutters coming through the lane and in/out of your primary. Go ahead and get a first class "freedom of movement" call down low early. Let the players know you are watching.
Third, when a the shot goes up away from you-look for the closest competitive match up near the basket in your primary. The mechanics books tell you where you are supposed to be looking when you are watching an off ball rebound. Get your eyes there, find the opponents and referee the contact. Let the player's eyes and bodies tell you where the ball is. I assure you, it is going to come down, and if someone in your primary can make a play on it, they will. Then, if need be, put a whistle on illegal contact.
Lastly, trust your partners. Each night you work with men and women who have experience. Trust them to get where they need to be, and take care of your business. An example could be, when in transition from slot to slot and the ball handler is a few feet from you, referee that play until the ball leaves. Make sure you stay with the players until the ball has left, and the players are clear and out of danger from making contact. Let the ball go where it is going, generally into another referees primary.
Remember, there is a whole "world" of stuff going on away from the ball. Make sure you are on top of it, and-that you get the call right.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Friday, August 9, 2013
NFHS 2013 Point of Emphasis:
Granting Time-out: ".........Officials need to know the status of the ball and whether it is in player control. Having a full view of the player in control who is requesting the time-out is critical to determining if you may grant a time-out........"
Picture this: The setting is a summer basketball officials camp. The floor is full of talented players in a close and heated contest-even for a summer game competitive spirits are still very high, they want to WIN! A shot goes up, is missed, and the long rebound is secured by a defender. The trail referee "bails out" and heads down the floor anticipating a quick play at the basket, as the time is within 12 seconds. Uh Oh there is a quick steal, the play is staying. The new lead now is quickly returning to the old trail position he just bailed on. The lead moves out on the baseline to cover the "scrum" that has developed on the floor around the ball. He is literally ten feet from the play observing the players and the ball. The coach on that end is moving to the play and is yelling for time out. Suddenly, from forty feet away a whistle comes from the trail official who is running to get back in position. He grants a time out and stops the play! After the game, at the officials debrief in the huddle, the clinician asks the trail official who granted the time-out, "Did you see the ball when you granted the time-out?" The official had a "deer in the headlight" reaction. And, well if you have been in or seen a situation like this, you probably can guess what happened.
NFHS Rule 5 Section 8 Art. 3 a. "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:.....Grants and signals a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team." There are also other useful rules to consult in this situation including: player control, dribble, and fumble.
If you haven't been in this situation, odds are you will be at some point. Knowing when to properly grant time-out, and then doing so, is a skill a good official will always have. It is no secret in today's game, that the time-out is now a tool/tactic used by coaches ( and players ) to manage situations on the court. It is not just a time for the coach to talk to his/her team. And, there are coaches at every level that have mastered the skill of using it.
The NFHS Points of Emphasis invites us this year to be mindful of procedures for correctly granting time-outs. Reading the paragraph written by the committee, in my mind, seems to emphasize two things; coaches being encouraged to give a verbal and visual signal in their request, and officials knowing that there is player control.
I am not totally sure we can directly control the way coaches request time-outs. We could mention it to them in our brief meeting while shaking their hand. One wonders if that piece of advice would even be heard given the circumstance. However, an official knowing the status of the ball is always within our ability on the court. We should know where the ball is, and its status, regardless of our position in the rotation. And, if we find ourselves in a temporary position when we don't know the status of the ball-we should probably refrain from making calls that require us to have complete knowledge, like the granting of time-outs.
I would suggest a few tips around the granting of time-outs. The first couple come from the mechanic books themselves. Know your proper positions on the court. Officials who are consistently in the correct positions whether lead, trail or slot are more likely to be in better positions to observe plays and know the status of the ball. Remember to move and improve your angles, but don't "migrate" far from the "Cadillac" positions. Once the ball is in your primary-make sure you are adjusting your position to see clearly through the play. We are reminded to be sure player control is part of the time-out call.
When you read the entire paragraph for the POE, the last sentence begins with, "It's vital to know the situation of the game, the proper sequence of calling a time-out......." Perhaps this becomes of even more importance applied to this scenario. It is not a stretch to assume that in the closing seconds of a tie/close game coaches are going to want a time-out on any given possession. This is something the crew needs to talk about not only in pre-game, but in the last minutes of games when you have a time-out and you can come together briefly. In that instance remind each other of scenarios so that awareness is increased. In other words, keep your head in the game and don't get caught back on your heels on a call like this in the first place.
Each night we strive to be the best team on the floor, and to get the call right. Knowing how to apply the rule is just as important as knowing the rule.
Picture this: The setting is a summer basketball officials camp. The floor is full of talented players in a close and heated contest-even for a summer game competitive spirits are still very high, they want to WIN! A shot goes up, is missed, and the long rebound is secured by a defender. The trail referee "bails out" and heads down the floor anticipating a quick play at the basket, as the time is within 12 seconds. Uh Oh there is a quick steal, the play is staying. The new lead now is quickly returning to the old trail position he just bailed on. The lead moves out on the baseline to cover the "scrum" that has developed on the floor around the ball. He is literally ten feet from the play observing the players and the ball. The coach on that end is moving to the play and is yelling for time out. Suddenly, from forty feet away a whistle comes from the trail official who is running to get back in position. He grants a time out and stops the play! After the game, at the officials debrief in the huddle, the clinician asks the trail official who granted the time-out, "Did you see the ball when you granted the time-out?" The official had a "deer in the headlight" reaction. And, well if you have been in or seen a situation like this, you probably can guess what happened.
NFHS Rule 5 Section 8 Art. 3 a. "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:.....Grants and signals a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team." There are also other useful rules to consult in this situation including: player control, dribble, and fumble.
If you haven't been in this situation, odds are you will be at some point. Knowing when to properly grant time-out, and then doing so, is a skill a good official will always have. It is no secret in today's game, that the time-out is now a tool/tactic used by coaches ( and players ) to manage situations on the court. It is not just a time for the coach to talk to his/her team. And, there are coaches at every level that have mastered the skill of using it.
The NFHS Points of Emphasis invites us this year to be mindful of procedures for correctly granting time-outs. Reading the paragraph written by the committee, in my mind, seems to emphasize two things; coaches being encouraged to give a verbal and visual signal in their request, and officials knowing that there is player control.
I am not totally sure we can directly control the way coaches request time-outs. We could mention it to them in our brief meeting while shaking their hand. One wonders if that piece of advice would even be heard given the circumstance. However, an official knowing the status of the ball is always within our ability on the court. We should know where the ball is, and its status, regardless of our position in the rotation. And, if we find ourselves in a temporary position when we don't know the status of the ball-we should probably refrain from making calls that require us to have complete knowledge, like the granting of time-outs.
I would suggest a few tips around the granting of time-outs. The first couple come from the mechanic books themselves. Know your proper positions on the court. Officials who are consistently in the correct positions whether lead, trail or slot are more likely to be in better positions to observe plays and know the status of the ball. Remember to move and improve your angles, but don't "migrate" far from the "Cadillac" positions. Once the ball is in your primary-make sure you are adjusting your position to see clearly through the play. We are reminded to be sure player control is part of the time-out call.
When you read the entire paragraph for the POE, the last sentence begins with, "It's vital to know the situation of the game, the proper sequence of calling a time-out......." Perhaps this becomes of even more importance applied to this scenario. It is not a stretch to assume that in the closing seconds of a tie/close game coaches are going to want a time-out on any given possession. This is something the crew needs to talk about not only in pre-game, but in the last minutes of games when you have a time-out and you can come together briefly. In that instance remind each other of scenarios so that awareness is increased. In other words, keep your head in the game and don't get caught back on your heels on a call like this in the first place.
Each night we strive to be the best team on the floor, and to get the call right. Knowing how to apply the rule is just as important as knowing the rule.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
RSBQ and the Power of You!
Have you ever had someone tell you, "words mean things?" Likely you have. And, when it was said to you, I can imagine that you had a pretty clear understanding of what the speaker was trying to tell you. Most likely, this was because you understood the context in which the person used the phrase. Context, as it turns out, is a major component of communication. But this post is not about communication.
I was reading the NFHS web site recently, and noticed the 2013-2014 Points of Emphasis for basketball. The second one on the list is; "Guidelines to Enforce Illegal Contact." And then under that heading it reads: "When contact occurs that affects the rhythm, speed, quickness and balance of the player, illegal contact has occurred. When illegal contact occurs fouls must be called. Officials must not refrain from calling these types of actions that create an advantage for the opponent. Illegal contact must be called regardless of time and score."
Anyone besides me find this interesting? For whatever reason? I especially like the sentence, "When illegal contact occurs fouls must be called." You have to appreciate the simplicity there don't you? As the reader, do any of you have another idea-for instance-is there illegal contact you normally as a matter of course ignore or let go? Or, consider the converse-have you ever called a foul on contact that was legal?
Upon first reading the comment, I was struck by the brevity. There was no clarity offered about the words-rhythm, speed, quickness and balance. I assume that the committee believes we as officials are universally clear in our minds on what these attributes are. And, it is no secret that there has been emphasis through out basketball about officiating what I call "RSBQ." The fact that the committee mentions it this year at the high school level is of note culturally. Anyone that has done a game or two can clearly see an increase in the "physicality" on the floor in boy's and girl's contests over the years.
Attend, if you will, a high school or college camp this summer and you will hear much ado about "freedom of movement." Listen carefully to the explanation of the clinician and you will quickly gather that they are speaking about "RSBQ." Look around the room, or the huddle on the floor, and you will see a bunch of men and women nodding there heads as if to say "yep gotcha there, I know what you are talking about."
I would argue that this simple, short and to the point statement, has the potential to have significant impact on foul counts this year. That is if players play the way they are playing now, and officials blow contact according to the Point of Emphasis.
First of all, I would challenge each of you to look up the definitions of the words; affect, rhythm, speed, balance and quickness. When you read each definition notice what happens in your mind-you build the definition, or one of them as most have multiple entries, around context of what you have experienced/seen on the floor. In other words, you add context to try understand the intended meaning. I find the use of the word rhythm especially intriguing. Most people, and even officials, don't use this word with regularity in describing basketball movement. Yet, in the culture/context of our game it can be used beautifully to describe many movements we see on the floor.
Once you have a "contextual" definition in mind, notice next the connections the statement makes between the words movement, contact and illegality. The statement starts out with the idea of "contact." Hope no one needs help with that. It is the next word, affect, that we need to slow down on. In this statement the word is used as a verb, which by the way is its most common usage. It is an action word. So in essence the idea is when you see an action-contact- that produces an action-affect- on one or more the four attributes-rhythm, speed, balance and quickness-illegal contact has occurred. I often wonder when reading that, is there any contact/affect that could enhance or improve an opponents RSBQ?
The very next idea in the paragraph is the beauty and the difficulty of the statement: "When illegal contact occurs, fouls must be called." Clearly, here the authors make the connection that the above contact/affect as described is to be called a foul. Some of you are saying, "Well Duh!" And, it does open the door to that with such a "simpleton" statement.
But, if that simple statement is not enough, the committee goes on to tell us that, "Officials must not refrain from calling these types of actions that create an advantage for an opponent." So here we go right to the heart of the matter. The committee is clearly trying to focus on the "fact" that they believe more attention needs to be put on calling fouls as described. And, just so you know I am paying attention, did anyone read in that point of emphasis anything about "the ball?"
Where "the rubber will meet the road" on this one is the application. It is going to require some skillful discretion on the part of the individual official, AND-some better than above average coordination between members in a crew. And, this is where I believe the impact of this statement can change, if only for a moment, the tone of officiating on the floor.
The committee "appears" to be pointing us to the fact that more attention is to be spent observing and potentially penalizing contact that has perhaps before been allowed to occur. Sorry for that sentence, I'm trying to be a little "politically correct" here. Why else would you have this as a point of emphasis. Clearly, more attention needs to be paid to "freedom of movement"-and I would argue this to be on both offense and defense.
Practically speaking what do you think this may look like. Can you imagine what would happen if on the first night of the season in all of the "first" games played, and the first whistles blown in the first minute address contact that affects "RSBQ?" Do you think that perhaps in a few up coming contests this fall, there might be some higher foul count totals earlier in the first half than what we have previously seen? I would submit, if the point of emphasis is applied, there will be more fouls. AND, there will be more coach and official interaction around the calls.
How many times now have you blown a whistle in a contest, and then heard the calls from coaches to "let them play," or "this IS a Varsity game.?" I hate those statements. My internal response to myself sometimes is "ye it is a Varsity game, so act like it!"
And, then there is the context that says, "blow the whistle, call these fouls early, they will get the message and change their style of play!" Really? I can imagine there are some players, and coaches where that could be true. But, for the average team and varsity game my experience suggests otherwise. Then what we will get into, is what is "prophesied" in the last part of the statement, that these fouls are to be called regardless of score or time on the clock. And coaches will be exceptionally vocal to make sure you know that "you called that ten minutes ago, now you are letting it go!"
This one will be interesting. I am not suggesting it is not important or that the committee was not correct in its "assessment." What I am saying, is that this one asks us, the officials, to look at an area, again, where the culture of the game has moved, moved substantially, and it is going to take a "Herculean" effort to move away from this physical "body style" play that we see now. At the moment my mind is going to the traveling call, and how that one has changed in the on-floor culture. And, how officials in general have reacted to it.
It can be done, officials can look at this and react in a positive manner for the game. It will take another level of concentration and coordination within the crew each night, to make sure we are together on this one. These are the types of calls that can set a crew apart each game. And we all should strive to be the best team on the floor each night.
I was reading the NFHS web site recently, and noticed the 2013-2014 Points of Emphasis for basketball. The second one on the list is; "Guidelines to Enforce Illegal Contact." And then under that heading it reads: "When contact occurs that affects the rhythm, speed, quickness and balance of the player, illegal contact has occurred. When illegal contact occurs fouls must be called. Officials must not refrain from calling these types of actions that create an advantage for the opponent. Illegal contact must be called regardless of time and score."
Anyone besides me find this interesting? For whatever reason? I especially like the sentence, "When illegal contact occurs fouls must be called." You have to appreciate the simplicity there don't you? As the reader, do any of you have another idea-for instance-is there illegal contact you normally as a matter of course ignore or let go? Or, consider the converse-have you ever called a foul on contact that was legal?
Upon first reading the comment, I was struck by the brevity. There was no clarity offered about the words-rhythm, speed, quickness and balance. I assume that the committee believes we as officials are universally clear in our minds on what these attributes are. And, it is no secret that there has been emphasis through out basketball about officiating what I call "RSBQ." The fact that the committee mentions it this year at the high school level is of note culturally. Anyone that has done a game or two can clearly see an increase in the "physicality" on the floor in boy's and girl's contests over the years.
Attend, if you will, a high school or college camp this summer and you will hear much ado about "freedom of movement." Listen carefully to the explanation of the clinician and you will quickly gather that they are speaking about "RSBQ." Look around the room, or the huddle on the floor, and you will see a bunch of men and women nodding there heads as if to say "yep gotcha there, I know what you are talking about."
I would argue that this simple, short and to the point statement, has the potential to have significant impact on foul counts this year. That is if players play the way they are playing now, and officials blow contact according to the Point of Emphasis.
First of all, I would challenge each of you to look up the definitions of the words; affect, rhythm, speed, balance and quickness. When you read each definition notice what happens in your mind-you build the definition, or one of them as most have multiple entries, around context of what you have experienced/seen on the floor. In other words, you add context to try understand the intended meaning. I find the use of the word rhythm especially intriguing. Most people, and even officials, don't use this word with regularity in describing basketball movement. Yet, in the culture/context of our game it can be used beautifully to describe many movements we see on the floor.
Once you have a "contextual" definition in mind, notice next the connections the statement makes between the words movement, contact and illegality. The statement starts out with the idea of "contact." Hope no one needs help with that. It is the next word, affect, that we need to slow down on. In this statement the word is used as a verb, which by the way is its most common usage. It is an action word. So in essence the idea is when you see an action-contact- that produces an action-affect- on one or more the four attributes-rhythm, speed, balance and quickness-illegal contact has occurred. I often wonder when reading that, is there any contact/affect that could enhance or improve an opponents RSBQ?
The very next idea in the paragraph is the beauty and the difficulty of the statement: "When illegal contact occurs, fouls must be called." Clearly, here the authors make the connection that the above contact/affect as described is to be called a foul. Some of you are saying, "Well Duh!" And, it does open the door to that with such a "simpleton" statement.
But, if that simple statement is not enough, the committee goes on to tell us that, "Officials must not refrain from calling these types of actions that create an advantage for an opponent." So here we go right to the heart of the matter. The committee is clearly trying to focus on the "fact" that they believe more attention needs to be put on calling fouls as described. And, just so you know I am paying attention, did anyone read in that point of emphasis anything about "the ball?"
Where "the rubber will meet the road" on this one is the application. It is going to require some skillful discretion on the part of the individual official, AND-some better than above average coordination between members in a crew. And, this is where I believe the impact of this statement can change, if only for a moment, the tone of officiating on the floor.
The committee "appears" to be pointing us to the fact that more attention is to be spent observing and potentially penalizing contact that has perhaps before been allowed to occur. Sorry for that sentence, I'm trying to be a little "politically correct" here. Why else would you have this as a point of emphasis. Clearly, more attention needs to be paid to "freedom of movement"-and I would argue this to be on both offense and defense.
Practically speaking what do you think this may look like. Can you imagine what would happen if on the first night of the season in all of the "first" games played, and the first whistles blown in the first minute address contact that affects "RSBQ?" Do you think that perhaps in a few up coming contests this fall, there might be some higher foul count totals earlier in the first half than what we have previously seen? I would submit, if the point of emphasis is applied, there will be more fouls. AND, there will be more coach and official interaction around the calls.
How many times now have you blown a whistle in a contest, and then heard the calls from coaches to "let them play," or "this IS a Varsity game.?" I hate those statements. My internal response to myself sometimes is "ye it is a Varsity game, so act like it!"
And, then there is the context that says, "blow the whistle, call these fouls early, they will get the message and change their style of play!" Really? I can imagine there are some players, and coaches where that could be true. But, for the average team and varsity game my experience suggests otherwise. Then what we will get into, is what is "prophesied" in the last part of the statement, that these fouls are to be called regardless of score or time on the clock. And coaches will be exceptionally vocal to make sure you know that "you called that ten minutes ago, now you are letting it go!"
This one will be interesting. I am not suggesting it is not important or that the committee was not correct in its "assessment." What I am saying, is that this one asks us, the officials, to look at an area, again, where the culture of the game has moved, moved substantially, and it is going to take a "Herculean" effort to move away from this physical "body style" play that we see now. At the moment my mind is going to the traveling call, and how that one has changed in the on-floor culture. And, how officials in general have reacted to it.
It can be done, officials can look at this and react in a positive manner for the game. It will take another level of concentration and coordination within the crew each night, to make sure we are together on this one. These are the types of calls that can set a crew apart each game. And we all should strive to be the best team on the floor each night.
Friday, June 14, 2013
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL THING
I have been researching various rules and topics for the last several posts. It is hoped that they have been beneficial to the readers. Please allow this diversion into the forgotten corners of basketball history
I have been trying to think about what parts of the basketball game I find the most appealing. Part of that thought is wrapped around the idea of why one might continue to run up and down a basketball court, chasing young people, at such an advanced age. I recently have met officials that are in their late sixties, who still get out there and give it their best every night. Now, I am nowhere near sixty, but as I look at the calendar-it shows me every day I need to value each hour I live "cause" the clock is ticking.
When thinking about what I enjoy about the game, I was drawn to what I believe is one of the prettiest sights in the gym on any given night. AND NO, it is not a particular person or gender I refer to - like some of my referee buddies will kid about.
I think one of the most beautiful pictures I like to see on the court in a game is the one-handed jump shot. There is just something about watching a perfectly executed jump shot from start to finish. No matter what the level of play, or the length of the shot, seeing that shot is just thrilling. And, it is even more rewarding, at times, to watch it go in.
In today's game, so much of the TV hype and highlights swirl around the dunk. Take a look at ESPN's top ten any night during a basketball season, and chances are very high some of the plays you watch over and over and over again, are pictures of very tall men, maybe women next WNBA season, getting close to the basket and throwing the ball "down." That is all well and good, nothing here against a good dunk. They get the crowd, in any gym, going.
But, give me the jump shot. The player coming to a stop, squaring up, jumping to his/her maximum height, extending the arm/ball upwards and towards the goal, with a flick of the wrist at the end, and then floating back to the floor. Wow, what a moment. That small amount of time, even maybe as long as a second or two, as the ball follows a trajectory towards the goal. Then falling, sometimes perfectly, through the net. That, also takes skill. I mean think about all the mental functions in a human being that must occur in order for a jump shot to be successful. I wonder if it takes more skill to shoot over 30% from the three point line, than 99% from the restricted area in the paint.
I was curious about the jump shot so I looked it up. It seems the NCAA website had a whole story on who they credit with introducing and perfecting the one-hand jump shot at the college level. His name is Kenny Sailors. And, he was still alive last year 2012, at the right smart age of 92.
The story goes, that Kenny had an older brother as a kid. And this older brother was much taller than he was, about 6' 5" to Kenny's 5' 7". Kenny got tired of his brother's swatting his set shots out of the sky in their backyard playing one-on-one. It dawned on him one day to add the jump while shooting just to get the ball over his brother. And, the rest is as they say, "history."
Kenny would later travel to an AAU tournament where he would see a player using a one-hand set shot. You see in that day, most shots were executed with two hands, and in fact, Kenny used two hands in his first jump shots. He fell in love with the one handed shot.
Later he would go to the University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, and using his 36" vertical leap, and his new love of one-hand shots, along with some other great skills, and become an All American. In fact, Kenny was so good he led his team, the Cowboys, to the NCAA 1946 title game, where the Cowboys prevailed over Georgetown 46 - 34. Kenny scored 16 points in that game at Madison Square Garden.
Now a days, you see various iterations of the jump shot all over high school, recreation, college or pro sports. And I guarantee you, almost none of the people taking the shot you see, know anything about Kenny Sailors. But, without him, we would not have what I think is the most beautiful shot in basketball today.
I have been trying to think about what parts of the basketball game I find the most appealing. Part of that thought is wrapped around the idea of why one might continue to run up and down a basketball court, chasing young people, at such an advanced age. I recently have met officials that are in their late sixties, who still get out there and give it their best every night. Now, I am nowhere near sixty, but as I look at the calendar-it shows me every day I need to value each hour I live "cause" the clock is ticking.
When thinking about what I enjoy about the game, I was drawn to what I believe is one of the prettiest sights in the gym on any given night. AND NO, it is not a particular person or gender I refer to - like some of my referee buddies will kid about.
I think one of the most beautiful pictures I like to see on the court in a game is the one-handed jump shot. There is just something about watching a perfectly executed jump shot from start to finish. No matter what the level of play, or the length of the shot, seeing that shot is just thrilling. And, it is even more rewarding, at times, to watch it go in.
In today's game, so much of the TV hype and highlights swirl around the dunk. Take a look at ESPN's top ten any night during a basketball season, and chances are very high some of the plays you watch over and over and over again, are pictures of very tall men, maybe women next WNBA season, getting close to the basket and throwing the ball "down." That is all well and good, nothing here against a good dunk. They get the crowd, in any gym, going.
But, give me the jump shot. The player coming to a stop, squaring up, jumping to his/her maximum height, extending the arm/ball upwards and towards the goal, with a flick of the wrist at the end, and then floating back to the floor. Wow, what a moment. That small amount of time, even maybe as long as a second or two, as the ball follows a trajectory towards the goal. Then falling, sometimes perfectly, through the net. That, also takes skill. I mean think about all the mental functions in a human being that must occur in order for a jump shot to be successful. I wonder if it takes more skill to shoot over 30% from the three point line, than 99% from the restricted area in the paint.
I was curious about the jump shot so I looked it up. It seems the NCAA website had a whole story on who they credit with introducing and perfecting the one-hand jump shot at the college level. His name is Kenny Sailors. And, he was still alive last year 2012, at the right smart age of 92.
The story goes, that Kenny had an older brother as a kid. And this older brother was much taller than he was, about 6' 5" to Kenny's 5' 7". Kenny got tired of his brother's swatting his set shots out of the sky in their backyard playing one-on-one. It dawned on him one day to add the jump while shooting just to get the ball over his brother. And, the rest is as they say, "history."
Kenny would later travel to an AAU tournament where he would see a player using a one-hand set shot. You see in that day, most shots were executed with two hands, and in fact, Kenny used two hands in his first jump shots. He fell in love with the one handed shot.
Later he would go to the University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, and using his 36" vertical leap, and his new love of one-hand shots, along with some other great skills, and become an All American. In fact, Kenny was so good he led his team, the Cowboys, to the NCAA 1946 title game, where the Cowboys prevailed over Georgetown 46 - 34. Kenny scored 16 points in that game at Madison Square Garden.
Now a days, you see various iterations of the jump shot all over high school, recreation, college or pro sports. And I guarantee you, almost none of the people taking the shot you see, know anything about Kenny Sailors. But, without him, we would not have what I think is the most beautiful shot in basketball today.
Friday, June 7, 2013
WHICH CAME FIRST? THE CHICKEN...................
Here is one for the those rules aficionados amongst us. Think about this "play" scenario, and see if you would have gotten the play right!
B1, in a marked lane space, enters the lane prematurely. The administering official properly signals the violation, seeing the occurrence, A1 quickly launches the prettiest arcing free throw one has ever seen. The ball does not go through the basket, and does not hit the rim. The slot official "toots" his/her whistle, and asks for one of those impromptu meetings that officials sometimes engage in on the floor. Amongst the discussion, they try to figure out, "which violation" occurred first. They decide on a strategy-come out, and since B1 violated first, they award A1 a new free throw, and play on from there. One official actually mentions to the Team B coach that his player violated first, and he buys it.
Question: Did they get it right? Have you ever been in a camp or clinic where during on-court observations the clinician discusses a situation where he/she exhorts you to decide what happened first? Usually something like, "hey, did the foul cause the walk, or did the walk occur before the foul?" Many times this discussion occurs on double whistles. That is all well and good. In some cases we really do/should determine what happened first on the play.
BUT, in this case, you need to forget that. The officials above got it wrong. This play is addressed in the NFHS 2012-2013 CASEBOOK on page 53, SIMULTANEOUS VIOLATION, 6.4.3 SITUATION A. The ruling states: " The violations by B1 and A1 constitute a simultaneous free-throw violation. Unless another free throw follows, play resumes with an alternating-possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line."
SHAZAM! It is considered a simultaneous violation. If you are familiar with the high school casebook you know that there are over a dozen "cases" about free throws addressed. This is the only one about violations being simultaneous. And, it is temping to look at this play, and justify penalizing the "first" violation we see. After all, we are "programmed" that way. But, in this case-we need to know the rule, and the remedy. Being the best team on the floor, means we strive to get the call right.
B1, in a marked lane space, enters the lane prematurely. The administering official properly signals the violation, seeing the occurrence, A1 quickly launches the prettiest arcing free throw one has ever seen. The ball does not go through the basket, and does not hit the rim. The slot official "toots" his/her whistle, and asks for one of those impromptu meetings that officials sometimes engage in on the floor. Amongst the discussion, they try to figure out, "which violation" occurred first. They decide on a strategy-come out, and since B1 violated first, they award A1 a new free throw, and play on from there. One official actually mentions to the Team B coach that his player violated first, and he buys it.
Question: Did they get it right? Have you ever been in a camp or clinic where during on-court observations the clinician discusses a situation where he/she exhorts you to decide what happened first? Usually something like, "hey, did the foul cause the walk, or did the walk occur before the foul?" Many times this discussion occurs on double whistles. That is all well and good. In some cases we really do/should determine what happened first on the play.
BUT, in this case, you need to forget that. The officials above got it wrong. This play is addressed in the NFHS 2012-2013 CASEBOOK on page 53, SIMULTANEOUS VIOLATION, 6.4.3 SITUATION A. The ruling states: " The violations by B1 and A1 constitute a simultaneous free-throw violation. Unless another free throw follows, play resumes with an alternating-possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line."
SHAZAM! It is considered a simultaneous violation. If you are familiar with the high school casebook you know that there are over a dozen "cases" about free throws addressed. This is the only one about violations being simultaneous. And, it is temping to look at this play, and justify penalizing the "first" violation we see. After all, we are "programmed" that way. But, in this case-we need to know the rule, and the remedy. Being the best team on the floor, means we strive to get the call right.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
CORRECTABLE ERROR AND POINT OF INTERUPTION!
I had this happen in one of my games. It underscores, at least for me, the importance of making sure you are mentally awake, and determined to get the call right. In the ebb and flow of any game, sometimes things can happen, and doing the wrong thing makes sense. Read the post, and decide for yourself, have you ever had to get this call right.
NFHS BASKETBALL CASEBOOK, p. 10; 2.10.1 SITUATION E:
A1 is fouled. The scorer informs the official that Team B has committed ten team fouls and that the two-free-throw penalty is in effect. The official administers the free throw and states and indicates "two" throws. The first free throw is unsuccessful and the second is successful. B1 has the ball out of bounds for the throw-in. The scorer informs the official that there were only nine team fouls on Team B and that the penalty should have been one and one.
So, what do you do? I mean besides wondering if the official scorer can count. The situation calls on you to be very familiar with the concepts of both correctable errors and point of interruption. And, it is of supreme importance, in this situation as described, that we apply what we know in exactly the right way.
So, before I go further, what do you do with the free throws? And, what is the point of interruption?
First of all, you know that this situation of awarding an unmerited free throw is a correctable error. But, are you really clear as to the timing of the correction? We must first determine the time frame of the sequence of events. B1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw in, and your partner has the count. The scorer is yelling/signaling that there is a concern to be addressed. Are you going to blow the play dead?
Yep, as a matter of fact the error is discovered within the correctable error time frame. So you correctly blow the ball dead, then get the crew together to talk about things. Now, you discuss the play. You know the free throw is canceled. Why? The, second free throw was an unmerited free throw attempt. You granted/indicated two, but it should have been a one-and-one. AND, the first free throw was missed.
Now, the real test comes. What is the point of interruption? Is it the B1 throw in? NO it is not! In this situation, the second free throw is canceled. The error was the two free throws instead of the one-and-one. The first free throw was missed. So, your point of interruption, by rule, is a missed free throw.
Now, what do you do? We have a point of interruption as a missed free throw. Who gets the possession? Here is the ruling: The error is discovered within the correctable error time frame, and shall be corrected. The second free throw is canceled and play is resumed at the point of interruption. Since "no goal" has been scored, play is resumed with an alternating-possession throw-in at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred. (2-10-1b; 2-10-6; 4-36-2c)
So, now we have it. we got the time frame, the correctable error, and the point of interruption all in the right order nice and neat! And, if my experience is any judge, we have some conversations going on with coaches to help them understand why we took a way a point, and went to the arrow for the possession.
Now for you really smart ones out there-Where is the "spot nearest to where the ball was located when stoppage occurred?"
NFHS BASKETBALL CASEBOOK, p. 10; 2.10.1 SITUATION E:
A1 is fouled. The scorer informs the official that Team B has committed ten team fouls and that the two-free-throw penalty is in effect. The official administers the free throw and states and indicates "two" throws. The first free throw is unsuccessful and the second is successful. B1 has the ball out of bounds for the throw-in. The scorer informs the official that there were only nine team fouls on Team B and that the penalty should have been one and one.
So, what do you do? I mean besides wondering if the official scorer can count. The situation calls on you to be very familiar with the concepts of both correctable errors and point of interruption. And, it is of supreme importance, in this situation as described, that we apply what we know in exactly the right way.
So, before I go further, what do you do with the free throws? And, what is the point of interruption?
First of all, you know that this situation of awarding an unmerited free throw is a correctable error. But, are you really clear as to the timing of the correction? We must first determine the time frame of the sequence of events. B1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw in, and your partner has the count. The scorer is yelling/signaling that there is a concern to be addressed. Are you going to blow the play dead?
Yep, as a matter of fact the error is discovered within the correctable error time frame. So you correctly blow the ball dead, then get the crew together to talk about things. Now, you discuss the play. You know the free throw is canceled. Why? The, second free throw was an unmerited free throw attempt. You granted/indicated two, but it should have been a one-and-one. AND, the first free throw was missed.
Now, the real test comes. What is the point of interruption? Is it the B1 throw in? NO it is not! In this situation, the second free throw is canceled. The error was the two free throws instead of the one-and-one. The first free throw was missed. So, your point of interruption, by rule, is a missed free throw.
Now, what do you do? We have a point of interruption as a missed free throw. Who gets the possession? Here is the ruling: The error is discovered within the correctable error time frame, and shall be corrected. The second free throw is canceled and play is resumed at the point of interruption. Since "no goal" has been scored, play is resumed with an alternating-possession throw-in at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred. (2-10-1b; 2-10-6; 4-36-2c)
So, now we have it. we got the time frame, the correctable error, and the point of interruption all in the right order nice and neat! And, if my experience is any judge, we have some conversations going on with coaches to help them understand why we took a way a point, and went to the arrow for the possession.
Now for you really smart ones out there-Where is the "spot nearest to where the ball was located when stoppage occurred?"
Friday, May 31, 2013
"SO FAR AWAY"
Some of you would remember the band-Dire Straits. IF you do, you might want to take a look at yourself-father time is marching on. But, I thought it a nice "intro" to the subject matter in this piece.
Question: How far is 36 inches? OK, confusing, I will ask it a different way-How far is 3 feet? Better? Good! So you think you know how far that is, right? Now, let's proceed.
All of you have seen this play: A1 is advancing in the front court with the ball. He/she comes into the top of the key. B1 and B2 have collapsed and are-you guessed it less than 36 inches/3 feet apart. A1 makes a faking move, then proceeds directly between B1 and B2 causing contact with the defenders. Question: what do you do? Do you put air in the whistle? If you do, what is your call?
Frankly, I have seen this go three ways: offensive foul, defensive foul, and no-call. Truth be told, I have probably kicked this one as hard as anyone. So let's take a look at the NFHS Casebook-and get the call right!
The 2012-2013 NFHS CASEBOOK addresses this call on page 94, under "DRIBBLER CONTACT" 10.6.7. Here is the ruling; "Unless one of the defensive players is faked out of position to permit adequate space for the dribbler to go between without making contact, it is a player control foul."
The ruling asks the officials to make several judgments. As if we don't have enough to do! I have to know how far "less than 3 feet apart" is. I have to determine if the defender reacted to the fake, moved and created "adequate space" for the dribbler to move through. And, then there is the whole idea of contact.
I mean really, can't I just let this one go? Absolutely not! This is a foul. And in the casebook play the contact is deemed to have been created by the dribbler. Unless conditions allow that dribbler to get through those defenders, "without making contact", the contact is judged to be a player control foul.
I want to encourage you to get the book out and look at this one. There is an explanation right behind the ruling, that answers a lot of the questions that would come to your mind. Turns out, that "screening principles" apply to the dribbler. That's right! Screening principles apply to the ball handler. I had not thought about that. Here is a quote: "When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops."
And, in the casebook, as it is set up, it makes clear that unless the space between the defenders is sufficient to allow the dribbler to go between them "without making contact", we are "punching it" the other way. We don't have discretion.
I think as officials we can get this one in our heads, and get it right on the floor. Where I think there can be some argument, is with lesser informed coaches. As I have noticed, I have never heard much discussion about when screening principles apply to an offensive player. At least, not specific in that context. We usually talk about the defender getting there, or the dribbler created the contact, or sometimes we no-call the play if the contact is "inconsequential". The latter idea causing us some problems when all of sudden a partner official bangs the dribbler down on the end.
Let's study this one. Make sure we get the distance in our head, slow down, observe the whole play-and Get the Call Right!
Question: How far is 36 inches? OK, confusing, I will ask it a different way-How far is 3 feet? Better? Good! So you think you know how far that is, right? Now, let's proceed.
All of you have seen this play: A1 is advancing in the front court with the ball. He/she comes into the top of the key. B1 and B2 have collapsed and are-you guessed it less than 36 inches/3 feet apart. A1 makes a faking move, then proceeds directly between B1 and B2 causing contact with the defenders. Question: what do you do? Do you put air in the whistle? If you do, what is your call?
Frankly, I have seen this go three ways: offensive foul, defensive foul, and no-call. Truth be told, I have probably kicked this one as hard as anyone. So let's take a look at the NFHS Casebook-and get the call right!
The 2012-2013 NFHS CASEBOOK addresses this call on page 94, under "DRIBBLER CONTACT" 10.6.7. Here is the ruling; "Unless one of the defensive players is faked out of position to permit adequate space for the dribbler to go between without making contact, it is a player control foul."
The ruling asks the officials to make several judgments. As if we don't have enough to do! I have to know how far "less than 3 feet apart" is. I have to determine if the defender reacted to the fake, moved and created "adequate space" for the dribbler to move through. And, then there is the whole idea of contact.
I mean really, can't I just let this one go? Absolutely not! This is a foul. And in the casebook play the contact is deemed to have been created by the dribbler. Unless conditions allow that dribbler to get through those defenders, "without making contact", the contact is judged to be a player control foul.
I want to encourage you to get the book out and look at this one. There is an explanation right behind the ruling, that answers a lot of the questions that would come to your mind. Turns out, that "screening principles" apply to the dribbler. That's right! Screening principles apply to the ball handler. I had not thought about that. Here is a quote: "When both the dribbler and the opponent are moving in exactly the same path and same direction, the player behind is responsible for contact which results if the player in front slows down or stops."
And, in the casebook, as it is set up, it makes clear that unless the space between the defenders is sufficient to allow the dribbler to go between them "without making contact", we are "punching it" the other way. We don't have discretion.
I think as officials we can get this one in our heads, and get it right on the floor. Where I think there can be some argument, is with lesser informed coaches. As I have noticed, I have never heard much discussion about when screening principles apply to an offensive player. At least, not specific in that context. We usually talk about the defender getting there, or the dribbler created the contact, or sometimes we no-call the play if the contact is "inconsequential". The latter idea causing us some problems when all of sudden a partner official bangs the dribbler down on the end.
Let's study this one. Make sure we get the distance in our head, slow down, observe the whole play-and Get the Call Right!
Friday, May 24, 2013
EXAMPLE OF A PATIENT WHISTLE!
Think about this situation with me. I have seen this one before!
Player for A1 secures a long rebound and bolts toward his/her basket. You are the trailing/covering official and you advance quickly up/down the floor. While you are advancing near Team B's bench, the coach/bench personnel loudly advises you that you are an idiot, dropping the "F" bomb to emphasize his point. You clearly hear this remark, and well-as much as you hate to do it you're going to have to "T" this one up. Question: When do you blow and assess the technical foul?
The question is a good one, and it asks us to think about something that comes up over and over again in so many ways. There is an answer about the play part. And, it is addressed in the NFHS 2012-2013 Casebook on pages 88 and 89. It falls under "WITHHOLD WHISTLE: 10.4.1 SITUATION F".
A couple of thoughts come to my mind; first-I have not had to spell "withhold" in a long time, I forgot there was the double h (it just looked weird.) Second, how many times in the rulebook or casebook are we asked to withhold a whistle anyway? It cannot be that many. Back to the point.
In the casebook when you read it you will see clear reference to the fact that A1 is advancing the ball toward the basket on an apparent goal. Said another way (for my friends from my home state of WV), the guy/gal is trying to score. The book advises us to hold our whistles and allow the play to develop to a made or missed basket-then blow the technical foul. And in my example, that is if the offensive language is coming from Team B. You react differently if the insult comes from Team A's bench/coach!
I will let you read the casebook for yourself and go over that. What I want you to think about here is that once again we are invited/advised to know clearly what is going on with the ball. We have to have court awareness enough and maturity enough in that situation to not stop that scoring attempt until it plays out.
In the situation I saw; the official banged the play too early. The result was he went to the table to assess the technical foul AND wipe off a basket. I gave him the information that the ball went in the basket. He chose to not award the goal.
In a case like this example, where I made the offensive language targeted at the official, it sometimes hard for us to not react very quickly. We have emotions on the floor as well. In the "on floor" culture now with so many coaches "working" the officials night in and night out, we can get on edge. Especially late in the season. We have to stay focused on the issue/s at hand, and on what we are on the floor to do.
One of the assignors I work for has a piece of advice he sends out several times a season. It is an exhortation that each crew work each night "to be the best team on the floor." Not only knowing the rules and getting calls right, but making sure we stay level headed and even keel on the floor is very important.
Player for A1 secures a long rebound and bolts toward his/her basket. You are the trailing/covering official and you advance quickly up/down the floor. While you are advancing near Team B's bench, the coach/bench personnel loudly advises you that you are an idiot, dropping the "F" bomb to emphasize his point. You clearly hear this remark, and well-as much as you hate to do it you're going to have to "T" this one up. Question: When do you blow and assess the technical foul?
The question is a good one, and it asks us to think about something that comes up over and over again in so many ways. There is an answer about the play part. And, it is addressed in the NFHS 2012-2013 Casebook on pages 88 and 89. It falls under "WITHHOLD WHISTLE: 10.4.1 SITUATION F".
A couple of thoughts come to my mind; first-I have not had to spell "withhold" in a long time, I forgot there was the double h (it just looked weird.) Second, how many times in the rulebook or casebook are we asked to withhold a whistle anyway? It cannot be that many. Back to the point.
In the casebook when you read it you will see clear reference to the fact that A1 is advancing the ball toward the basket on an apparent goal. Said another way (for my friends from my home state of WV), the guy/gal is trying to score. The book advises us to hold our whistles and allow the play to develop to a made or missed basket-then blow the technical foul. And in my example, that is if the offensive language is coming from Team B. You react differently if the insult comes from Team A's bench/coach!
I will let you read the casebook for yourself and go over that. What I want you to think about here is that once again we are invited/advised to know clearly what is going on with the ball. We have to have court awareness enough and maturity enough in that situation to not stop that scoring attempt until it plays out.
In the situation I saw; the official banged the play too early. The result was he went to the table to assess the technical foul AND wipe off a basket. I gave him the information that the ball went in the basket. He chose to not award the goal.
In a case like this example, where I made the offensive language targeted at the official, it sometimes hard for us to not react very quickly. We have emotions on the floor as well. In the "on floor" culture now with so many coaches "working" the officials night in and night out, we can get on edge. Especially late in the season. We have to stay focused on the issue/s at hand, and on what we are on the floor to do.
One of the assignors I work for has a piece of advice he sends out several times a season. It is an exhortation that each crew work each night "to be the best team on the floor." Not only knowing the rules and getting calls right, but making sure we stay level headed and even keel on the floor is very important.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
DOUBLE DOWN LOW, NO PLACE TO GO!!!
NFHS 2012-2013 CASEBOOK, p.74, 9.3.3 Situation B: A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. A3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to have his/her defender detained by the double screen. RULING: The official shall call a violation on A3 as soon as he/she steps out of bounds. The ball is awarded to Team B at a designated spot nearest to where the violation occurred.
Usually you don't see this in "summer ball" that much. Teams want to play their usual "runnin and gunnin" style of basketball. On occasion, not sure if a team is intentionally running a play or just happen into it, you will see what I call a "double down low." A double screen set near the end line.
Besides getting really crowded in some small real estate, this can cause some headaches for the lead, maybe even a slot-official if glancing at a secondary. The casebook application asks you, the official, to judge the intent of the movement of A3. Last time I tried really hard, I failed my mind reading test.
Seeing this recently, I put air in the whistle, made up some sort of mechanic-not sure what the correct one was-the book has one where you just point to the floor for the "free throw, designated spot or other violation" so I guess that's it-and sent the ball the other way. At the next possession coach calls a time out and says-"Give me a full time-out, then I want to talk to you!" You can guess where that went, and yes she was quite sure I did not know what I was talking about.
If you are reading this, you know well the play as you have seen it for yourself. And, I am not going to make comments on coaches and their understanding of rules. What is useful in this post is a discussion of the call and why you make it. The casebook sets it up as A3 "intentionally" goes out of bounds. I find this interesting. Is this entry really asking me to judge a players intent? Well, you should, we do it all the time. What about a try for a goal, a tap, or what about the intentional foul? Or, how about a closely guarded play-we judge the defenders intent there too. And, yes all those examples have something to do with the ball. I Got that.
The rule book also makes provisions for players leaving the court, inadvertently, as the result of normal basketball movements. And, I think there I can see that there probably is lack of intent. So, not a problem.
Back to the casebook. The other part of the sentence above is key to the call, "to have his/her defender detained by the double screen." There is a direct linkage to a distinct advantage/disadvantage scenario here. The offensive player leaves the court to put the defender at a clear disadvantage. And that is how I can make a judgment on the play. Besides, that is what the rule is all about.
Not sure it will be big one to focus on, especially in summer ball. Kids shoot so quick, the ball rarely makes it that low unless its on a rebound. But, when we see this, we got to make sure we get the call right. And, when you explain it to the coach-probably should mention the disadvantage created on the defender somewhere in your explanation.
Usually you don't see this in "summer ball" that much. Teams want to play their usual "runnin and gunnin" style of basketball. On occasion, not sure if a team is intentionally running a play or just happen into it, you will see what I call a "double down low." A double screen set near the end line.
Besides getting really crowded in some small real estate, this can cause some headaches for the lead, maybe even a slot-official if glancing at a secondary. The casebook application asks you, the official, to judge the intent of the movement of A3. Last time I tried really hard, I failed my mind reading test.
Seeing this recently, I put air in the whistle, made up some sort of mechanic-not sure what the correct one was-the book has one where you just point to the floor for the "free throw, designated spot or other violation" so I guess that's it-and sent the ball the other way. At the next possession coach calls a time out and says-"Give me a full time-out, then I want to talk to you!" You can guess where that went, and yes she was quite sure I did not know what I was talking about.
If you are reading this, you know well the play as you have seen it for yourself. And, I am not going to make comments on coaches and their understanding of rules. What is useful in this post is a discussion of the call and why you make it. The casebook sets it up as A3 "intentionally" goes out of bounds. I find this interesting. Is this entry really asking me to judge a players intent? Well, you should, we do it all the time. What about a try for a goal, a tap, or what about the intentional foul? Or, how about a closely guarded play-we judge the defenders intent there too. And, yes all those examples have something to do with the ball. I Got that.
The rule book also makes provisions for players leaving the court, inadvertently, as the result of normal basketball movements. And, I think there I can see that there probably is lack of intent. So, not a problem.
Back to the casebook. The other part of the sentence above is key to the call, "to have his/her defender detained by the double screen." There is a direct linkage to a distinct advantage/disadvantage scenario here. The offensive player leaves the court to put the defender at a clear disadvantage. And that is how I can make a judgment on the play. Besides, that is what the rule is all about.
Not sure it will be big one to focus on, especially in summer ball. Kids shoot so quick, the ball rarely makes it that low unless its on a rebound. But, when we see this, we got to make sure we get the call right. And, when you explain it to the coach-probably should mention the disadvantage created on the defender somewhere in your explanation.
Friday, May 17, 2013
"LONG COOL WOMAN"
(Disclaimer: My apologies to the readers who are not from my generation. I realize the post may have references to some pop-culture ideas that the young among you will have trouble with. But, to those of us who are "young at heart", it hopefully will make more sense!"
Those of us from or from shortly after the generation of Buddy Holly, will remember the tune. Even today, when this comes on the radio, I use the volume button on my steering wheel and turn it up. Its just one of those tunes that lifts the spirit no matter what the situation. So how is it relevant to getting the calls right on the floor?
Here is a question-"What color was the dress the Long Cool Woman wore?" Have an answer? I know what color it is, but does it really matter? I mean I have heard bands cover the song in person, on the TV, and even on radio. In many of those cases, the color changed. It seemed to be changed to make the song relevant to an issue or event the singer wanted to highlight. I remember one year, after the Duke Men won a national basketball championship, and on TV I heard that she wore a "blue" dress. In other cases, more than one, I heard the woman wore a "red" dress.
The point in looking at this highlights the fact that, in some cases an "artists' prerogative/interpretation" was taken with the song. It was done for effect, and illustrates what we as humans do on occasion, to make ourselves seem, feel, appear sensitive to our circumstance/s.
Recently, I have been reading a string of posts on an international social networking site, that are written by basketball referees. Referees of all levels of work and experience are commenting on the site. One string was of particular note when a few people addressed "flopping." In regards to violation, technical foul, or just no call. If you are reading this post, you have seen a flop. And, you have chosen a reaction to it (probably more than once, and maybe more than one reaction). The rule and its interpretation/application is not the point of this post.
What I want to address is, "Why do officials react to a flop the way they do?" When you read the string, you see that there is no particular misunderstanding of the rule. BUT, there is a wide range of response how to react to it. You, the reader, probably have no particular problem with the rule.
So, why then do we see such an apparent "ignorance" of the rule and its application/penalty, on the floor? How many times, this season in any of your games, did you see a "flop" penalized in any way? Or, have you heard a statement in the post-game discussion where a partner of yours complimented you on the "good no-call on that flop?" You know we just didn't want to stop the game for that "interrupter."
Oh, I see, you usually like to give them a warning. You want to keep the game moving (obviously important, no argument here), but you let them know if you see it again you will have to address it. Let me ask you something, "Have you ever given a warning to a player for traveling?" "Hey there young man, next time you forget which pivot foot you used I'm gonna have to get it!" Yes well the flop did not cause an advantage. Of course, you're right. And we call advantage disadvantage.
I would argue, that in this job we call officiating, just because we step on the floor with a funny looking shirt and whistle-doesn't mean we stop being human. We take that part with us wherever we go. And, on the floor we use judgment. Part of the human condition that will just never be eliminated from the game. Nor, should it be. We should always admit to ourselves, and others, that we are first human, and all our decisions about enforcing a rule or not fall within that human condition. The "flop" rule is not the only one that gives us occasion to think about whether or not we enforce it. Ever heard of the three second rule? What IS of importance is that the crew be consistent in any given game, such that the players/coaches can adjust to the "ideas" they see on the floor. We need to take care that our "human condition" does not itself cause an advantage or disadvantage.
By the way, the "LONG COOL WOMAN" first wore a black dress! Question: How tall was she?
Those of us from or from shortly after the generation of Buddy Holly, will remember the tune. Even today, when this comes on the radio, I use the volume button on my steering wheel and turn it up. Its just one of those tunes that lifts the spirit no matter what the situation. So how is it relevant to getting the calls right on the floor?
Here is a question-"What color was the dress the Long Cool Woman wore?" Have an answer? I know what color it is, but does it really matter? I mean I have heard bands cover the song in person, on the TV, and even on radio. In many of those cases, the color changed. It seemed to be changed to make the song relevant to an issue or event the singer wanted to highlight. I remember one year, after the Duke Men won a national basketball championship, and on TV I heard that she wore a "blue" dress. In other cases, more than one, I heard the woman wore a "red" dress.
The point in looking at this highlights the fact that, in some cases an "artists' prerogative/interpretation" was taken with the song. It was done for effect, and illustrates what we as humans do on occasion, to make ourselves seem, feel, appear sensitive to our circumstance/s.
Recently, I have been reading a string of posts on an international social networking site, that are written by basketball referees. Referees of all levels of work and experience are commenting on the site. One string was of particular note when a few people addressed "flopping." In regards to violation, technical foul, or just no call. If you are reading this post, you have seen a flop. And, you have chosen a reaction to it (probably more than once, and maybe more than one reaction). The rule and its interpretation/application is not the point of this post.
What I want to address is, "Why do officials react to a flop the way they do?" When you read the string, you see that there is no particular misunderstanding of the rule. BUT, there is a wide range of response how to react to it. You, the reader, probably have no particular problem with the rule.
So, why then do we see such an apparent "ignorance" of the rule and its application/penalty, on the floor? How many times, this season in any of your games, did you see a "flop" penalized in any way? Or, have you heard a statement in the post-game discussion where a partner of yours complimented you on the "good no-call on that flop?" You know we just didn't want to stop the game for that "interrupter."
Oh, I see, you usually like to give them a warning. You want to keep the game moving (obviously important, no argument here), but you let them know if you see it again you will have to address it. Let me ask you something, "Have you ever given a warning to a player for traveling?" "Hey there young man, next time you forget which pivot foot you used I'm gonna have to get it!" Yes well the flop did not cause an advantage. Of course, you're right. And we call advantage disadvantage.
I would argue, that in this job we call officiating, just because we step on the floor with a funny looking shirt and whistle-doesn't mean we stop being human. We take that part with us wherever we go. And, on the floor we use judgment. Part of the human condition that will just never be eliminated from the game. Nor, should it be. We should always admit to ourselves, and others, that we are first human, and all our decisions about enforcing a rule or not fall within that human condition. The "flop" rule is not the only one that gives us occasion to think about whether or not we enforce it. Ever heard of the three second rule? What IS of importance is that the crew be consistent in any given game, such that the players/coaches can adjust to the "ideas" they see on the floor. We need to take care that our "human condition" does not itself cause an advantage or disadvantage.
By the way, the "LONG COOL WOMAN" first wore a black dress! Question: How tall was she?
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
CAN THERE BE TWO JUMP BALLS TO START THE GAME?
So, what is the answer? By rule, interpretation/application, can there be two successive jump balls in the middle circle to begin a high school basketball game? OK, if you said, "YES", you get the pat on the back. You are correct! If you said "NO WAY", then some more study is in your future!
Here is the scenario, (and I have never personally seen it, but I can imagine it to happen):
The referee steps in between the players, up goes the toss (a darn good one at that), one guy/gal tips the ball hard behind him/her and the ball heads quickly towards the end-line, two opposing players reach the ball at approximately the same time, and the ball is simultaneously controlled by opposing players, and just inside the end-line, the covering official blows and puts the thumbs in the air for a held ball!
Now, think of it for a moment. If this is you, what do you do? Unless you know the application of the rule, you could be sweating-a lot. Here is what the NFHS 2012-2013 Casebook says in regards to this situation: "A2 and B2 will jump in the center restraining circle regardless of where the ball went out or where the held ball occurred." ( p. 52 under Jump Ball To Start The Game - 6.4.1 Situation C. )
By the way, the application treats a ball that goes out of bounds after simultaneously being touched by two opposing players the same way!
So, yes Virginia not only is there a Santa Claus, but there can be two jump balls in the middle restraining circle to start a high school basketball game. Probably rare! But you know the saying, "If it's in the book, it probably has happened."
Now, for the really sharp among you-noodle this one-when does the direction arrow get set? Think about it!
Here is the scenario, (and I have never personally seen it, but I can imagine it to happen):
The referee steps in between the players, up goes the toss (a darn good one at that), one guy/gal tips the ball hard behind him/her and the ball heads quickly towards the end-line, two opposing players reach the ball at approximately the same time, and the ball is simultaneously controlled by opposing players, and just inside the end-line, the covering official blows and puts the thumbs in the air for a held ball!
Now, think of it for a moment. If this is you, what do you do? Unless you know the application of the rule, you could be sweating-a lot. Here is what the NFHS 2012-2013 Casebook says in regards to this situation: "A2 and B2 will jump in the center restraining circle regardless of where the ball went out or where the held ball occurred." ( p. 52 under Jump Ball To Start The Game - 6.4.1 Situation C. )
By the way, the application treats a ball that goes out of bounds after simultaneously being touched by two opposing players the same way!
So, yes Virginia not only is there a Santa Claus, but there can be two jump balls in the middle restraining circle to start a high school basketball game. Probably rare! But you know the saying, "If it's in the book, it probably has happened."
Now, for the really sharp among you-noodle this one-when does the direction arrow get set? Think about it!
Sunday, May 12, 2013
"ON THE FLOOR!!!!"
How many times have you heard this in a high school gym? How many times have you uttered these words in one of your high school games? It can look a lot (or a little) like this: an offensive player with the ball drives the basket, there is illegal contact and a quick whistle-from any where on the floor-and then we have a basketball falling through the basket with an official with his fist up and quickly waving off the basket yelling, "No basket, On The Floor!" And, accompanying these words come these spastic referee arm movements-usually a windmill fashion and ending up with fingers of one or both hands pointing to the hardwood. Have you seen it? Have you done it?
I have. Seen it that is. Well, OK, I have also done it. And, unless I am just weird and terribly below average, my guess is one or two readers will have some "personal" experience with this as well. Let's take a look at it. Let's get the call right!
Referees must be intimately familiar with continuous motion. And, not just with the rule, but really consistent with its application. To begin, I am not talking about obvious fouls that occur before the habitual throwing motion begins. Example: you see a foul on a drive, hold your whistle because you are looking at a play in a secondary coverage area and you are waiting for the primary official to put air in the whistle. Not hearing any, you blow-and a little late. Not exactly optimum-but you can get the idea.
Continuous motion is a concept in the rules that applies to illegal contact/foul that occurs after a try has begun, and before the ball is released. Arguably, this is not a great amount of time! In fact, we all know it can be over very quickly, and we have to make the determination quickly. And, the foul does not have to be committed on the shooter, but it/foul must be committed by the defense. Also, the shooter does not have to be in the air.
I heard a referee tell me in a clinic one time that we make judgments on calls in about a half second. I am not a physicists, nor have I researched how long "begins the habitual act of shooting" is! (You can also tell I'm not an English major.) But, what I am sure of is the amount of time that the rule of continuous motion applies is a really short time frame on the floor. It begins quickly, and once the ball is away from the hand, it ends. Not withstanding the air-borne shooter rule.
The rule, according to the NFHS Casebook, has no significance unless there is a personal or technical foul by the defender or defense that occurs after the trying or tapping motion by the offense is started and before the ball is in flight. And, in this case the whistle does not cause the shot to end or the ball to become dead. Hopefully-even in the most obscure of gymnasiums the whistle will stop the clock!
There are other rules that can apply in this scenario, but I am only addressing the rule of continuous motion. Expert knowledge of the air-borne shooter rule would also be good in this situation.
There are several suggestions in the spoken and the written official universe that can be of significant help. Here are a few that I have found helpful. I researched some this, especially after "kicking the crap" out of a call like this in a game last year.
First, one of the most worn out but extremely valuable and correct statements you will hear in our world is "move to improve" or "work to get a better angle to see through the players." I find this to be the number one reason I miss the calls I do. I was not looking through the play, or I was in a poor position to observe the whole play. Working the angles and being mindful of ball lines is so important no matter what rule we are dissecting. I try to make sure I am conscious of when I am statuesque. Yes we move to improve, and stand still to officiate. And, I am not recommending we have "happy feet." But, if I find myself standing still too long, I will move slightly. I don't want to get into a situation where me and the Statue of Liberty have something in common.
Secondly, one mentor used to tell me all the time, "be patient, see the whole play and have a patient whistle." Good advice! And especially in this case. When we slow these type of plays down, we are more likely to get it right. Sure, we don't want to blow consistently when plays are obviously over and play is resetting. But, patiently allowing a play to develop, occur and finish, is of supreme importance.
Thirdly, a good pre-game where the whole crew goes to the floor understanding that when we have a whistle, the on-ball guy/gal is going to get the status of the ball. This can be real helpful to the crew when the off-ball guy blows in a continuous motion scenario. When you hear a whistle, with the ball in your primary, find the ball. Sound silly and simple and a little obvious? OK I will give you that. Now tell me, how many times a whistle goes off in a game of yours, and there is a question about the ball status. Our natural tendency, even as officials, is to look towards the whistle when we hear it. Kind of like the tendency of a lead official to look up, instead of look through plays at the basket or an official in transition watching the pass instead of the players in a fast break scenario.
Lastly, observe the contact/play. Trust your partners to get the flight of the ball. The mechanics book I have read all indicate what coverage occurs when the ball is headed to the basket. Trust the other guys/gals to do their job. While we do wear funny looking striped shirts, none of them in my bag have large red "S" on the chest. I am not Superman! My job is to see through the play, see the contact, determine if is illegal, and blow. My partners will have my back. They will let me know if I need to score the basket.
Here is a link to a helpful summary of the application of the continuous motion rule and high school officiating. There are other resources out there as well. Good Luck!
http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/105990/Library/files/Continuous%20Motion.pdf
I have. Seen it that is. Well, OK, I have also done it. And, unless I am just weird and terribly below average, my guess is one or two readers will have some "personal" experience with this as well. Let's take a look at it. Let's get the call right!
Referees must be intimately familiar with continuous motion. And, not just with the rule, but really consistent with its application. To begin, I am not talking about obvious fouls that occur before the habitual throwing motion begins. Example: you see a foul on a drive, hold your whistle because you are looking at a play in a secondary coverage area and you are waiting for the primary official to put air in the whistle. Not hearing any, you blow-and a little late. Not exactly optimum-but you can get the idea.
Continuous motion is a concept in the rules that applies to illegal contact/foul that occurs after a try has begun, and before the ball is released. Arguably, this is not a great amount of time! In fact, we all know it can be over very quickly, and we have to make the determination quickly. And, the foul does not have to be committed on the shooter, but it/foul must be committed by the defense. Also, the shooter does not have to be in the air.
I heard a referee tell me in a clinic one time that we make judgments on calls in about a half second. I am not a physicists, nor have I researched how long "begins the habitual act of shooting" is! (You can also tell I'm not an English major.) But, what I am sure of is the amount of time that the rule of continuous motion applies is a really short time frame on the floor. It begins quickly, and once the ball is away from the hand, it ends. Not withstanding the air-borne shooter rule.
The rule, according to the NFHS Casebook, has no significance unless there is a personal or technical foul by the defender or defense that occurs after the trying or tapping motion by the offense is started and before the ball is in flight. And, in this case the whistle does not cause the shot to end or the ball to become dead. Hopefully-even in the most obscure of gymnasiums the whistle will stop the clock!
There are other rules that can apply in this scenario, but I am only addressing the rule of continuous motion. Expert knowledge of the air-borne shooter rule would also be good in this situation.
There are several suggestions in the spoken and the written official universe that can be of significant help. Here are a few that I have found helpful. I researched some this, especially after "kicking the crap" out of a call like this in a game last year.
First, one of the most worn out but extremely valuable and correct statements you will hear in our world is "move to improve" or "work to get a better angle to see through the players." I find this to be the number one reason I miss the calls I do. I was not looking through the play, or I was in a poor position to observe the whole play. Working the angles and being mindful of ball lines is so important no matter what rule we are dissecting. I try to make sure I am conscious of when I am statuesque. Yes we move to improve, and stand still to officiate. And, I am not recommending we have "happy feet." But, if I find myself standing still too long, I will move slightly. I don't want to get into a situation where me and the Statue of Liberty have something in common.
Secondly, one mentor used to tell me all the time, "be patient, see the whole play and have a patient whistle." Good advice! And especially in this case. When we slow these type of plays down, we are more likely to get it right. Sure, we don't want to blow consistently when plays are obviously over and play is resetting. But, patiently allowing a play to develop, occur and finish, is of supreme importance.
Thirdly, a good pre-game where the whole crew goes to the floor understanding that when we have a whistle, the on-ball guy/gal is going to get the status of the ball. This can be real helpful to the crew when the off-ball guy blows in a continuous motion scenario. When you hear a whistle, with the ball in your primary, find the ball. Sound silly and simple and a little obvious? OK I will give you that. Now tell me, how many times a whistle goes off in a game of yours, and there is a question about the ball status. Our natural tendency, even as officials, is to look towards the whistle when we hear it. Kind of like the tendency of a lead official to look up, instead of look through plays at the basket or an official in transition watching the pass instead of the players in a fast break scenario.
Lastly, observe the contact/play. Trust your partners to get the flight of the ball. The mechanics book I have read all indicate what coverage occurs when the ball is headed to the basket. Trust the other guys/gals to do their job. While we do wear funny looking striped shirts, none of them in my bag have large red "S" on the chest. I am not Superman! My job is to see through the play, see the contact, determine if is illegal, and blow. My partners will have my back. They will let me know if I need to score the basket.
Here is a link to a helpful summary of the application of the continuous motion rule and high school officiating. There are other resources out there as well. Good Luck!
http://www.arbitersports.com/Groups/105990/Library/files/Continuous%20Motion.pdf
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Out of Bounds: No Problem!
NOTE TO READER: I have to issue my disclaimer again, I am not an expert on the rules of basketball, so what you read next may have some "tongue in my cheek!"
IMAGINE THIS; ( I say that because frankly, I've never heard of anyone that has seen this! ) You are beginning to administer a throw-in to resume play after a held-ball. You have designated the spot, the player is ready for the hand off/bounce, you take one last glance at your partners and the court, and just for safe measure you remind the defender to not strike the ball or the player out of bounds. You hand/bounce the ball to the player, step back a step or two, and begin the visible but silent five count for the throw in. And then, what to your wandering eyes should appear, but the thrower extends the ball forward across the boundary into the playing court. And, and an exceptionally bright-or possibly just real lucky defender-grasps the ball, and all of sudden we have four hands on a live ball, in bounds on an alternating possession throw in. You put air in your whistle!
OK! Everything has gone according to plan to this point. Now, the whole gym is looking at you and you have got to make the call. What is going through your head? Probably the same thing going through a bunch of heads, "How did that happen?" And, what is going to be done about it. We got a whistle.
So now you start thinking, it looks like a held ball. But wait a minute, something is just wrong with this picture. I know I've got a live ball, I know it looks like a held ball. So, I'm going with a held ball. So, up go the thumbs. It is almost automatic. And, not a correctable error by the way.
All right! Now, I have the held ball, what is my next instinct? Look at the arrow! OK, I got the arrow, it says I'm staying, but wait a minute, that was a held ball throw in, so is that right? Maybe a partner can help, so you look. Oh boy, deer in the headlights. This is not going to be smooth. And, doggone it, there is a supervisor on the fifth row. Oh, I know, when not sure, come together as a crew, talk about it-get it right.
Now, we come together. What do you have? Did the arrow change? No, there was no chop. Oh, OK, well the arrow says we are staying-yeah-wait that was an alternating possession throw in, you called a held ball we got to go the other way! Well yea, but one guy was out of bounds. Huh? Yea, the guy just held it, he was out of bounds. Well, do we have a held ball? Well, sort of, except one guy was out of bounds. Well, don't both guys got to be in bounds? Yeah, but he wasn't. Yep, he sure wasn't. Well he hit the ball, is that violation or technical? No, he just grabbed it. And, it was in bounds? Yeah, it was inbounds. OK, well, I think I remember, we got a live ball, it was tied up, so we go to the arrow and we're going the other way. Yeah, but the arrow did not change, we did not have a chop or legal touch in bounds. Oh yeah, you're right!
While the event is certainly rare, or even non-existent, you probably can appreciate some the discussion, that would have gone on in the huddle. As referees, we get paid to get it right. But, some times, especially when the event is just that weird or the rule that obscure, sometimes we have to just reach deep for the answer. And, when the event we witnessed is out side of our experience-that is when we have to be prepared with deep knowledge.
Everyone reading now knows that this particular occurrence is addressed, at both high school and the college level. Let's take the NFHS Casebook explanation on this one its a little shorter. Here it is; "6.4.5 Situation B: During an alternating-possession throw-in, thrower A1 holds the ball through the end-line plane and B1 grabs it, resulting in a held ball. Ruling: Since the throw-in had not ended and no violation occurred, it is still A's ball for an alternating-possession throw-in. (4-42-5)"
Now, back to the huddle. OK guys I got this. We got a held-ball, but not a completed throw-in. So, we're staying! Are we good? Yep, got it! So you step at from the huddle, and in your most serious of basketball mechanics, you motion at the table that we are staying, and the team that had the ball is going to get another crack at it! And the fans and the other coach go NUTS! And, you notice the supervisor is writing on his pad! Holy Cow!
Interesting, is it not. I mean has anyone thought this one through just yet. OK, here it is, the rule book gives this situation a real break. You just called a held-ball, and put the ball back in play to the team that had the throw-in to begin with. And, yes when you called the held ball, the team's player that you are giving the ball back to was out of bounds when you called the held-ball. And, in all likelihood, you give it back to the same player at the same spot.
I was not around when the rules committee/s put this one in place. But, I bet it was just plain fun to watch the twisting and turning discussion on this one. Really, how many different views would there have been? How did they get past the player being out of bounds part? Why does the team retain the possession? Was a disadvantage created? Who is being penalized for good play here? How many times did this happen before they put something in the book? How many times has it happened since it was put in?
I am not smart enough to make a judgment on this. I don't know why it is the way it is. But, if it ever happens to me, I hope I get the call right!
IMAGINE THIS; ( I say that because frankly, I've never heard of anyone that has seen this! ) You are beginning to administer a throw-in to resume play after a held-ball. You have designated the spot, the player is ready for the hand off/bounce, you take one last glance at your partners and the court, and just for safe measure you remind the defender to not strike the ball or the player out of bounds. You hand/bounce the ball to the player, step back a step or two, and begin the visible but silent five count for the throw in. And then, what to your wandering eyes should appear, but the thrower extends the ball forward across the boundary into the playing court. And, and an exceptionally bright-or possibly just real lucky defender-grasps the ball, and all of sudden we have four hands on a live ball, in bounds on an alternating possession throw in. You put air in your whistle!
OK! Everything has gone according to plan to this point. Now, the whole gym is looking at you and you have got to make the call. What is going through your head? Probably the same thing going through a bunch of heads, "How did that happen?" And, what is going to be done about it. We got a whistle.
So now you start thinking, it looks like a held ball. But wait a minute, something is just wrong with this picture. I know I've got a live ball, I know it looks like a held ball. So, I'm going with a held ball. So, up go the thumbs. It is almost automatic. And, not a correctable error by the way.
All right! Now, I have the held ball, what is my next instinct? Look at the arrow! OK, I got the arrow, it says I'm staying, but wait a minute, that was a held ball throw in, so is that right? Maybe a partner can help, so you look. Oh boy, deer in the headlights. This is not going to be smooth. And, doggone it, there is a supervisor on the fifth row. Oh, I know, when not sure, come together as a crew, talk about it-get it right.
Now, we come together. What do you have? Did the arrow change? No, there was no chop. Oh, OK, well the arrow says we are staying-yeah-wait that was an alternating possession throw in, you called a held ball we got to go the other way! Well yea, but one guy was out of bounds. Huh? Yea, the guy just held it, he was out of bounds. Well, do we have a held ball? Well, sort of, except one guy was out of bounds. Well, don't both guys got to be in bounds? Yeah, but he wasn't. Yep, he sure wasn't. Well he hit the ball, is that violation or technical? No, he just grabbed it. And, it was in bounds? Yeah, it was inbounds. OK, well, I think I remember, we got a live ball, it was tied up, so we go to the arrow and we're going the other way. Yeah, but the arrow did not change, we did not have a chop or legal touch in bounds. Oh yeah, you're right!
While the event is certainly rare, or even non-existent, you probably can appreciate some the discussion, that would have gone on in the huddle. As referees, we get paid to get it right. But, some times, especially when the event is just that weird or the rule that obscure, sometimes we have to just reach deep for the answer. And, when the event we witnessed is out side of our experience-that is when we have to be prepared with deep knowledge.
Everyone reading now knows that this particular occurrence is addressed, at both high school and the college level. Let's take the NFHS Casebook explanation on this one its a little shorter. Here it is; "6.4.5 Situation B: During an alternating-possession throw-in, thrower A1 holds the ball through the end-line plane and B1 grabs it, resulting in a held ball. Ruling: Since the throw-in had not ended and no violation occurred, it is still A's ball for an alternating-possession throw-in. (4-42-5)"
Now, back to the huddle. OK guys I got this. We got a held-ball, but not a completed throw-in. So, we're staying! Are we good? Yep, got it! So you step at from the huddle, and in your most serious of basketball mechanics, you motion at the table that we are staying, and the team that had the ball is going to get another crack at it! And the fans and the other coach go NUTS! And, you notice the supervisor is writing on his pad! Holy Cow!
Interesting, is it not. I mean has anyone thought this one through just yet. OK, here it is, the rule book gives this situation a real break. You just called a held-ball, and put the ball back in play to the team that had the throw-in to begin with. And, yes when you called the held ball, the team's player that you are giving the ball back to was out of bounds when you called the held-ball. And, in all likelihood, you give it back to the same player at the same spot.
I was not around when the rules committee/s put this one in place. But, I bet it was just plain fun to watch the twisting and turning discussion on this one. Really, how many different views would there have been? How did they get past the player being out of bounds part? Why does the team retain the possession? Was a disadvantage created? Who is being penalized for good play here? How many times did this happen before they put something in the book? How many times has it happened since it was put in?
I am not smart enough to make a judgment on this. I don't know why it is the way it is. But, if it ever happens to me, I hope I get the call right!
Monday, May 6, 2013
Tragedy Speaks About Our Culture
If you have been paying attention lately, you are aware of the soccer referee that recently passed away, apparently as the result of a punch to the head received during a contest. At first, my reaction was one of shock, horror, and amazement. REALLY! He is dead?! Then, my thoughts turned to silent prayers for this guy's family, and the loss of a father and family guy.Then, my memory turned to the last few years, and the You Tube video's posted about violence towards officials. I tried to contemplate my years of growing up playing basketball in high school, and volleyball in college-(I was too short and slow to play basketball in college-so I stayed connected on the hardwood in another sport.) And, I could not come up with any personal experience around violence committed against a sports official in my presence. While doing some web research, I did find that over the last 30 years, there are stories about bad things happening to officials as a result of their officiating duties. And, what I also found is that there are more reports of such events in the last third of those years.
What struck me though, is that the culture around athletics is moving in the same direction as the culture generally. It appears to me, (in my opinion), that more and more I see some sort of verbal insult, obnoxious behavior-throwing ice, drinks, food, etc.-or out right physical violence in or around an athletic contest. Recently, I was talking to my partner referees at the end of a game behind a scorers table. We looked up when a crowd of parents/people estimated to be around 75 people gathered at the end of the court. And, within seconds, a fight had broken out. It was somewhat severe, as the next contest was delayed 30 minutes as blood had to be scrubbed from the playing surface.
I am not generally a doomsayer, nor do I try to judge behavior of other people- there is plenty of both of those and people who do are probably much "better" at it than me. And I find it simply just not worth my time to think about what I think about what someone else does.
But, I do find myself now, thinking about safety much more than I used to. It is a small "world" we operate in. Most places any of us go these days, we have been there before, and people can figure out who we are and what we do. I mean when you park and get out of the car and go to your trunk and pull out the right bag for the location-it is obvious to many what you are arriving to do.
Some time ago, I read an article about a notable referee retiring. I found it amusing at the time when in the body of one of the articles he was quoted as saying he always made sure he parked the car with the nose facing out. Not funny, anymore.
Now, no matter where I go, even in small summer venues, my thoughts are different when I pull into the parking lot. I mean its not just trying to avoid "door dings" anymore!
The real concern for me is, "Where does it go?" How far will it go? When will we read/hear about the official that is shot while working or after a game? I don't know. I hope never.
And, I am not sure what really can be done. I mean I recently saw law enforcement officers in uniform, attending and supervising a summer game sight. When I asked if he had a player there, or a relative, he said no-he was just doing his job! WOW!
I do wonder if in the future, in the front of our rule books under the "Officials Duties" section, if we indeed will see advice/mechanics about "workplace" violence!
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
What is Traveling?
"First of all, I would like for some official to define a traveling violation in today's game!!!!!!"
Note to reader: This piece is meant to provoke thought, not make definitive statements about rules or definitions. There will be the occasional "tongue in cheek" statement, that hopefully most experienced officials will take in stride. Regards, the author.
The heading says it all. It was written recently on another blog, by an ex-high school coach turned sports writer. And, just the other day in an AAU qualifying tournament-you know it is the "off-season"- I was confronted by several coaches over "ill timed" traveling calls on their teams. It seems to me that the basketball "culture" has shifted in many respects, and doggone it, I missed it.
Yes, it seems now that every where I go an offensive player is allowed two steps when he/she is going to the basket. Not away from the basket mind you. Not sideline to sideline, not in the middle of the court, nor at the division line. No sir! The offensive player is allowed two steps when they are going to basket in an attempt to score.
And, it is not just in AAU, or "rec" ball, oh no, it is now so in every high school and college gym you go into. I mean, how many times this past season in your games, did you make a traveling call, and here something similar. I would imagine more than once.
So I went on a quest. Just for grins and giggles, I pulled out every basketball rule book I could find, from the NFHS to the NCAA. I also used the magic of the Internet, to see what went on with the traveling rule, and try to figure out what the heck I was doing when it all changed. And here is what I found.
Did you know-(and you should be saying yes I know)-that the 2012-2013 NFHS rule book in rule 4 section 44/Traveling uses 344 words to define traveling. Did you also know-(and many of you should be saying yes I know)-that the NCAA 2012-2013 rule book uses in Rule 4 section 70:Traveling 304 words to define traveling. And in both books these words are exclusive of the discussions each has on-Try/Tap for a Goal/Act of shooting; or Pivot. And in None of these two books could I get a clear picture that "two steps towards the goal" was allowed. In fact, nothing had really changed there at all. I mean outside some words in the books about points of emphasis on spin moves and the like, it was still pretty much the way I learned it some time ago. Whew! I thought I had lost it. I mean really with so many people telling me that two steps towards the goal was the rule, I thought it was me!
Ah, but there is more. I decided to find out what the NBA said about traveling. And, Bingo, you guessed it, I found the smoking gun. I "googled" the rule and went to the NBA rules explanation web site-sort of the "NBA Rules for Dummies" thing. I clicked on traveling and there it was: " A player who receives the ball while in progress or upon completing his dribble is allowed a one-two count after gathering the ball and preparing to stop, pass or shoot. " Color me with a large amount of incredulity. I mean the kind of incredulity when someone tells you and then proves that "hell has frozen over." I went further, I went to the NBA Rule book (put out by Stu Jackson's office) and there in black and white- " A player who receives the ball while he is progressing or upon completion of a dribble, may take two steps in coming to a stop, passing or shooting the ball. "
So now, I am all cleared up on the matter. The coaches, and even an occasional well meaning referee colleague are right, "they get two steps towards the goal!" Or do they?
Here are some things to think about: Do you know the definition of traveling? Or, I guess what is more relevant would be: Do you know how to apply the definition/s and rule for traveling? Ah, now we get to the root of it. You see, the basketball culture is doing what the culture does-it takes the easy way out. When the NBA changed the rule back in 2009, and allowed the one two count, it forever changed the outlook of the call-at any level. And if you do not think I am right, next time you are out enjoying adult beverages and fellowship with your fellow officials-bring up the subject. See what you get! (Unless the reader is an NBA official.)
Now I'm not saying I'm perfect with the rule. I miss my share. But I do find myself these days paying more attention to what the player is doing with the ball. I want to get really familiar with what the beginning "habitual throwing motion" looks like when a player is moving to the basket. Especially if he/she is on a break away and there is no defender to look at (my experience tells me this is where the guy/gal is really going to line it up and get the "feet" right.) Obviously, if there is a defender there in the mix, you have to pick that up.
And, I am going to watch what that player does, and count in my head-after the ball is gathered. I start counting,"one, two" and if the ball is not on its way towards the basket or another player-then I am going to stop-look at my jersey. If I have a patch that says "NBA" on it-then I know I can be forgiving on that play. BUT, if I am in a black and white stripe jersey, I'm going to have to put air in that whistle. Then probably get ready to explain to the coach what type of game we're in! And if he/she does not believe that we are not in an NBA game I will just quietly ask: " how much was the ticket to get in here."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)