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.
No comments:
Post a Comment