Видео

😆😆😆

I'll answer you in code: 1-13-3.😉 -The Professor

@dondreavery4497 I agree with your observation. The contact was definitely illegal, but not excessive. The off official did an excellent job on getting to his partner to pass information. This display of communication is one way a crew can "control" the game. -The Professor

During the clip of dunking a deadball, the official near the scorers table called a technical foul as players were walking to their bench. In this situation, briefly discuss the ruling and penalty with your partner. Then, after reporting to the table, the ruling official can walk over to the team who was assessed the t-foul and pass the information (number of the play and what he/she did), and the results of the penalty. The other official can go to the offended team to tell them they will receive 2 free-throws plus the ball to start the game. This way, they get to designate a shooter ASAP. -The Professor

Good observation! You also used the words pushing and displace to describe what you saw. This straight to the point description of what you observed is all you'll need to say if asked by a player or the coach of the black team.👍🏾 -The Professor

I agree! White obtaining legal guarding position prior to the point of contact. ✅️ After determining legal statues, we must now determine the severity of the contact. Do you believe Blue #42 illegally contacted White #3, causing him to go down, or did White #3 embellish the contact in hopes of an official ruling a team-control foul? -The Professor

A key factor of determining what constitutes a traveling violation by a ball handler is determining which foot is the pivot foot. So, when the dribble came to an end, which foot did you determine to be the pivot foot? Something else to keep in mind while doing this is just because something looks bad doesn't make it illegal. -The Professor

There are situations where imply contacting the net is not illegal. Rule 4-6-1 allows an exception for contacting the net while the ball is on or within the basket, and the casebook provides caseplay scenarios for grabbing the net/basket ring with caseplay 9.11.4 Situation. Take a look at those and let me know whatcha think. -The Professor

@@RefClass I would say White 24 intentionally grabs the net, and shakes the entire backboard. That's not incidental contact. If his hand just passes through the net, I'm fine with that, but the whole backboard shakes, and he wasn't making a play on the ball. He was attempting to disrupt the contact of the basketball with the backboard.

​@@jamesday3591 When ruling on plays such as this, it's a good idea for officials to get together. Your description of what happened is greatly detailed.👍🏾 Watch the play again, and consider this: 1) Did safety have something to do with White #24 grabbing onto the net? (contact with Red #5)🤔 2) Was the shot above the cylinder and on the ring, or make contact with the ring at any point while the basket was shaking? 🤔 In order to rule basket interference, you must also add the information of what the action interfered with. -The Professor

@@RefClass No, safety did not play a sufficient factor. If the net was grabbed due to safety, the player would not have yanked on the net; he would have simply stabilized himself. The resulting shaking motion of the backboard was both flagrant, and directly impacted the natural contact of the basketball with the glass, which is a fundamental aspect of a low-angle layup against a taller defender. White 24 may have yanked it out of frustration, but it was excessive related solely to application of safety, and had a direct impact on the reasonable expectation of english for a low-angle layup.

​@@jamesday3591​ With the information that you provided as to how and why White #24 grabbed the net, the proper ruling for his actions would be a technical foul. The only thing with your comment that remains debatable (in my opinion) is whether or not the shot was on/over the cylinder when white #24 flagrantly grabbed/contacted the net. I witnessed the ball go completely over the rim, just barely contacting the backboard on the opposite side of the ring while on it's way down. Contacting/pulling the net had no effect on how the shot ended up (in my opinion). -The Professor -The Professor

If possible, it helps when officials use their voice in situations like this. Our training is different from the players' and coaches' training. We know players like to get up a shot after the whistle is blown. They don't have any bad intentions behind doing it. It's just out of habit to see if they would've made the shot. We have to use our voices in situations like this. "Hey, don't shoot that!" If the player still shoots the ball, so be it (delay of game warning), if he doesn't, we get to tell them the penalty if they had shot the ball. This rule covers all aspects of failing to give the nearest official the ball. I have .ore videos to come that display delay of game situations. Check out the video on the 2024-25 Points Of Emphasis, where I show 2 different situations: ruclips.net/video/fUSZtm6am_M/видео.htmlsi=sNYvupDRHojY8241 -The Professor

Sir, you are correct!😁 And if you want to know why, read rule 7.1.1. Situation D within the NFHS casebook. -The Professor

Technically speaking, rolling over while sliding is legal, rolling over while no longer sliding is illegal. Caseplay 4.44.5 Situation B. All other information that you stated is correct!👍🏾 -The Professor

So you would've called a foul on white #19 well before white #15' foul. I can see that.👍🏾 -The Professor

This play looks tricky. In order to accurately deem this to be legal or illegal, you have to know the rulebook of the level you are officiating. To my knowledge, all rulebooks will be the same pertaining to this play. Caseplay 4.44.5 Situation B in the NFHS casebook gives a clear explanation to determine this clip legal or illegal.😉 -The Professor

I was about to say the same thing lmao 😂

The ruling on this clip would be the same in an NBA, FIBA, college, high school, adult league, and youth league basketball game. From player to coach, and now as an official, assignor, and teacher of this beautiful game, I've realized that rule wise, I didn't know as much as I thought I knew before becoming an official. It's like driving. To never read the manual, then take a driver's test. I may know how to drive, but there are certain things that I will not know because I've never read the book. -The Professor

I will agree, it does look funny!😆... but, is it legal?🤔 -The Professor

@@RefClass not legal, it’s traveling. The play might create excitement but a violation is a violation.

You're welcome! Stay tuned. There's lots more to come.😉 -The Professor

I agree! However, the commentary is terrible.😫 -The Professor

2 shots and spot the ball at the designated spot nearest the foul.

Verbage is key! What would be your explanation to the coach as to why you decided to rule an interview foul? -The Professor

Poor sportsmanship needs to be addressed. With that being said, there will be moments in a game where addressing poor behavior with a technical foul vs. passing information to the individuals who need it in hopes of resolving the matter without a penalty are crucial. So, before giving an unsporting technique foul, just ask yourself, "Was this the only way to handle this?" -The Professor

@RefClass I believe in addressing things early on. Sort of nip things in the bud. Assuming this is high school level. I would've given a warning about sportsman ship in my players' meeting and gave the captain's a heads up on controlling these type of team mates, as they know them better than me. I have to double down on my response here. When something like this is directed at an opponents bench.

A kickballb(or any) violation in the backcourt will result in a throw-in nearest to the spot of where the ball was kicked. A kickball (or any) violation in the frontcourt will result in an inbound at one of the 4 designated spots (28 foot sideline or 3 foot endline) nearest to where the ball was kicked. -The Professor

Got it, thanks!

Great explanation on why you would have a play-on as well.👍🏾 -The Professor

Rule 4-27 teaches us about incidental contact. Article 1 states: The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. So, if the ruling official believed there was displacement that caused the defender to fall in that manner, a foul should be ruled. If not, the defender should be penalized with a flop warning (rule 4-49). -The Professor

@@RefClass Okay. Would that mean that if an offensive player grabs a defensive player, and prevents the defensive player from moving, that since there was no displacement, it's not a foul? I had the understanding that any impedance of an opposing player by the use of "arms extended" (meaning, from the elbow, not the shoulder) constituted one form of a blocking foul: "illegally blocking the path of the opponent". Am I incorrect in that understanding? If I'm not, then isn't the offensive player impeding the defensive player from following him by extending his arm into the defensive player's chest a foul, not because he dislodges his opponent, but because he impeded his path with arms extended? Thanks for the conversation on this.

Grabing your opponent is illegal (foul). Displacing your opponent is also illegal (foul). Embellishing incidental contact is a team warning ( team technical foul for each subsequent offense). The impedance of an opponent with extended arms and elbows are all forms of blocking fouls. The shoulder would depend on the legal guarding position prior to the point of contact. Officials are trained to determine the legal/illegal status of the defender prior to the point of contact. This helps to determine which player committed the foul. Legal defender = no foul. Illegal defender = foul. Both players committing illegal acts = double foul. Incidental contact followed by embellishment by either/both players in an attempt to fool the official into calling a foul = flop/fake being fouled warning. -The Professor

@@RefClass Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate it, and it seems to corroborate my understanding, that since White 5 directly impedes Black 3's movement by extending his arm (by pushing off), it's a blocking foul by White 5, followed by (potential) embellishment by Black 3. There "might" be embellishment by Black 3 in order to highlight the blocking foul by White 5 (but not in an attempt "fool" the official, so not a flop, and just bringing attention to White 5's blocking foul), but would "definitely" be a foul by White 5, since White 5 clearly and strongly pushes off of Black 3 with arm fully extended, with the obvious (and effective) attempt to create space by impeding Black 3's movement. So, again, since White 5 is directly impeding Black 3's movement with "arms extended", how is this not a blocking foul by White 5? I apologize if I come across as argumentative, as I sincerely do not intend to be. I honestly don't understand (especially after your explanation that seems to me to confirm that my understanding is correct) what you're seeing that I'm missing.

​@jamesday3591 No need to apologize. Let's go over the checklist. Did White #5 contact Black #3, yes. Was the contact incidental or illegal? This is what we have to decide as officials. Did White #5 shove Black #3, or did Black #3 embellish the incidental contact in hopes of getting the official to rule a team-control foul? What you see is what you see. The more games you work, the more videos you see, and the more training camps you attend will help put you in a position to properly rule on plays like this. The NFHS association wants us to clean up plays such as this. Prior to the inbound, the Primary ruling official obtained a dependable position to properly officiate this play. After the contact was made and Black #5 went down, the official gesture to the him to get up. The official did not deem the contact by White #5 to be illegal. Therefore, he should rule a flop warning. -The Professor

I've watched this play over and over, my friend. With that being said, I can see why the ruling official (along with you) ruled a player-control foul. My opinion on this play is flop warning. That contact didn't cause the defender to fly back in that manner. I see incidental contact on this play (IMO). I respect your opinion, and thanks for responding.🫡 -The Professor

@@RefClass Good conversation. What I see is White 5 planting his feet underneath, and actually all the way through and even slightly behind, Blue 3's feet, clearly inside of Blue 3's solidly established legal position. If White 5's feet stopped in front of Blue 3's, then I would agree that it's incidental contact warranting a flop warning on Blue 3. However, since Blue 3 does not move forward into White, and White 5 attempts to establish a legal position inside of Blue 3's already established position, White 5's incursion into Blue 5's established space results in one of the two of them giving up that space. White 5's placement of his feet, to me, clearly dislodges Blue 3 from his established position. It's more than incidental contact (White 5 is attempting to occupy Blue 3's established position), and White 5 is clearly responsible for the contact that dislodges Blue 3. Again, it's White 5's placement of his feet fully inside Blue 3's stationary position that leads me to call the foul on White 5. Considering where White 5 intentionally placed his feet, it would be absolutely impossible for Blue 3 to maintain his position, unless Blue 3 were to actively push White 5 out of Blue 3's space. IMO, the decision of foul or no-foul cannot be a result of either strength or aggression, but rather *has* to be one of position. Thoughts? What do you see differently? Do you believe that both Blue 3 and White 5 could have remained in their respective positions considering where White 5 placed his feet, without one of them giving up their legal space?

Rule 9-1-3 b. explains this situation. -The Professor

@@RefClass So I just read all of Rule 9, beginning to end. I see diconcertion of the free-throw shooter (by an opponent of the free-throw shooter), and I see faking a free-throw (by the free-throw shooter), but I see no reference at all to a teammate of the free-throw shooter baiting an opponent during a free-throw. Am I missing something?

Caseplay 4.44 Situation B. is where you can find the answer to this clip. -The Professor

At face value, this play looks difficult to officiate. Rule of thumb: Go with your gut. And your explanation should match your reason of why you blew your whistle or decided on a no-call. For example: Legal defender (not a foul), legal move by the offensive player with no displacement (not a player-control foul). I observed incidental contact on that play (rule 4-27). The defender did not flop (rule 4-49-1). -The Professor

When officiating a certain level, we (officials) must apply the rules pertaining to that level. NFHS (high school & middle school), CCA (college), ABA (simi-pro), FIBA (international), and NBA (United Stated pro league) all share the same basic rules, but have their our unique set of specific rules and caseplays for officials to uphold. Applying a college rule on a block/charge play in a high school game will back will not go well. Coaches won't understand and rightfully lash out. Your partners will have a difficult time matching your play call selection, which will throw the crew chemistry off. And you will separate yourself in the worst way amongst your fellow officials during the season. Case in point, you will never catch an NBA official applying a NFHS (high school) rule in their game. If he does, he will likely lose his job. -The Professor

@@RefClass I 100% agree, and would add that we need to know what rules differ at different levels of play in order to have the confidence to make calls (and appropriately address criticism) according to the level of the game of the moment. Know the level. Know the rules at each level. Make calls according to the level of the moment. Be able to address criticisms that apply to a different level of play.

Black #2 impeded white #3's freedom of movement by placing his forearm into his opponents chest. This act is illegal and should be penalized. Rule 4-24 teaches us about legal and illegal contact. -The Professor -The Professor

@@RefClass So the foul by Black 2 is due the forearm into the chest, and White 3's shove afterward is either a no call, because it's after the play has stopped, or a potentially technical, but in either case, play stopped with Black 2's forearm? Correct?

Do you have information to support your answer? Are you basing your answer off of high school basketball (NFHS), men's/women's college basketball (CCA), international basketball(FIBA), or U.S.A. professional basketball (NBA)? -The Professor

Held ball.👍🏾 -The Professor

Excellent verbage!😁 -The Professor

We (officials) win some, and we lose some. I've lost my fair share, that's for sure. Watching videos can help us be honest with ourselves while improving in the process.😉 -The Professor

A made 3 point shot vs. a missed 3 point shot during an intentional foul determines the amount of free-throws the offended player will receive. This play doesn't occur often. But in case it does, knowing will set you apart from the rest.😉 -The Professor

Unlike a drive to the basket, a free-throw shooter needs the same amount of protection as an airborne shooter. So, what looks like "no real displacement" against a vulnerable opponent needs to be officiated accordingly. -The Professor

I get it, and I agree. However, the shooter never went airborne. The contact wasn't egregious or overly physical. And she didn't get under the shooter to block on a landing. All contact isn't a foul, and I just a bump on the blockout. I would let this play on. However, if she had gotten underneath an airborne shooter during an attempt to blackout, I would blow on this to protect the airborne shooter.

You are correct about the time and distance required to obtain legal guarding distance on a ball handler. This caseplay description can be found by reading rules and caseplay number 4-23-3 of the NFHS basketball rulebook and casebook. -The Professor

You are correct pertaining to when the ball becomes. Can a team be granted a time-out during live ball? If so, which? -The Professor