Once she picks up the right foot that was in back court, technically both feet and the ball are in front court so my original comment stands and is correct. That is two feet and the ball.

 

Except the 3 points you cited ONLY applies to dribbling. I'm not talking technicalities. I'm saying your generalization was not true. The rulebook uses the 3 points ONLY when talking about dribbling.

Have you ever watched a juggler? Are they controlling the objects that they are juggling? Yes. That is the manner in which she juggled the ball over her last three steps so yes, she was controlling the ball. That's a walk.

 

What you are calling "juggling" is "tapping" or "fumbling." Zero chance a player caught the ball, threw it back up in the air while running, caught it again, and repeated that. Zero. The play you describe is 100% legal per the rulebook.

Except the 3 points you cited ONLY applies to dribbling. I'm not talking technicalities. I'm saying your generalization was not true. The rulebook uses the 3 points ONLY when talking about dribbling.

 

No that is not true at all. The ball is in the possession of the player in the scenario you mentioned so when the right foot is raised, both feet and the ball have become part of the front court. That in no way contradicts what I said. My original comment was about people's misunderstanding of the rule mainly when a kid has two feet over and the ball is still in back court. I said nothing, though, about dribbling versus not dribbling.

 

And Birdbrain, dislike away but if you have something to say, please have the stones to do so.

What you are calling "juggling" is "tapping" or "fumbling." Zero chance a player caught the ball, threw it back up in the air while running, caught it again, and repeated that. Zero. The play you describe is 100% legal per the rulebook.

 

No 100% chance actually because it happened and our fans all saw it, the kid laughed about it afterwards and her parents joked about it afterwards. So there is Zero chance that you are correct. Zero, but if you are an official this makes perfect sense really.

No that is not true at all. The ball is in the possession of the player in the scenario you mentioned so when the right foot is raised, both feet and the ball have become part of the front court. That in no way contradicts what I said. My original comment was about people's misunderstanding of the rule mainly when a kid has two feet over and the ball is still in back court. I said nothing, though, about dribbling versus not dribbling.

 

And Birdbrain, dislike away but if you have something to say, please have the stones to do so.

 

Ok, if you insist...here's the problem.

 

You start off in this thread trying to describe something that you witnessed, and then you ask a question. You get a very specific answer that includes an opportunity to clarify whether a player was dribbling or not....your story then changes, maybe a couple times even, you almost agreed at one point, but it was a technicality....yet you still insist on bringing back up your version, or the most current your version, and when that answer still doesn't suit you, you go nuclear and say there is zero chance that any of it is correct. :deadhorse:

 

That's the reason for the dislike..::idunno:

 

I only have one question, and one question only:

 

When was the last year you were a licensed basketball official ?

 

I will assume that with your vast knowledge of the technicalities of rule and case book interpretation that you actually have "the stones" to put on the shirt and whistle and make these calls that you are so certain about.

 

I'll wait patiently by the rock quarry for your reply....

Ok, if you insist...here's the problem.

 

You start off in this thread trying to describe something that you witnessed, and then you ask a question. You get a very specific answer that includes an opportunity to clarify whether a player was dribbling or not....your story then changes, maybe a couple times even, you almost agreed at one point, but it was a technicality....yet you still insist on bringing back up your version, or the most current your version, and when that answer still doesn't suit you, you go nuclear and say there is zero chance that any of it is correct. :deadhorse:

 

That's the reason for the dislike..::idunno:

 

I only have one question, and one question only:

 

When was the last year you were a licensed basketball official ?

 

I will assume that with your vast knowledge of the technicalities of rule and case book interpretation that you actually have "the stones" to put on the shirt and whistle and make these calls that you are so certain about.

 

I'll wait patiently by the rock quarry for your reply....

 

I didn't change anything associated with the facts of what occurred. I certainly elaborated on what occurred when asked specific questions and to further clarify the play, but I in no way changed the facts. Furthermore, I didn't go nuclear as someone else made the "Zero" chance comment, and I merely responded in kind. I am sure we can expect you to lecture that person for going "nuclear" but that might require a thicker skin and some objectivity, both of which you appear to be lacking.

 

As far as officiating, I am not licensed and haven't officiated in any respects in probably 20 years, but it is no easy job to be sure. I respect you for throwing your neck out there to do so. However, don't be one of those rabbit eared officials who responds to anything a fan says with a "dislike" and who thinks we came to the game to watch him officiate. If you were there and think she didn't have control of the ball that is your call. Most everyone else in the gym thought she did have control and thought it was a walk. That is all I am saying but none of us went nuclear to the officials who didn't call it. Good day!

I didn't change anything associated with the facts of what occurred. I certainly elaborated on what occurred when asked specific questions and to further clarify the play, but I in no way changed the facts. Furthermore, I didn't go nuclear as someone else made the "Zero" chance comment, and I merely responded in kind. I am sure we can expect you to lecture that person for going "nuclear" but that might require a thicker skin and some objectivity, both of which you appear to be lacking.

 

As far as officiating, I am not licensed and haven't officiated in any respects in probably 20 years, but it is no easy job to be sure. I respect you for throwing your neck out there to do so. However, don't be one of those rabbit eared officials who responds to anything a fan says with a "dislike" and who thinks we came to the game to watch him officiate. If you were there and think she didn't have control of the ball that is your call. Most everyone else in the gym thought she did have control and thought it was a walk. That is all I am saying but none of us went nuclear to the officials who didn't call it. Good day!

 

Glad you could play along....

 

Don't know where the "rabbit eared officials" quote comes from, but I certainly see the irony in your inability to hear anyone else's point of view, while at the same time pointing out what you think others do hear....isn't that interesting ?

 

Since you haven't officiated (something) in 20 years, maybe a refresher course would assist you in better understanding the games you are watching. Most officials spend considerable time each year training and studying rules so they get these types of call correct....I can understand how your perspective much be much more clear.

Glad you could play along....

 

Don't know where the "rabbit eared officials" quote comes from, but I certainly see the irony in your inability to hear anyone else's point of view, while at the same time pointing out what you think others do hear....isn't that interesting ?

 

Since you haven't officiated (something) in 20 years, maybe a refresher course would assist you in better understanding the games you are watching. Most officials spend considerable time each year training and studying rules so they get these types of call correct....I can understand how your perspective much be much more clear.

 

Not taking either side here, but IMO training and studying means nothing. Much like reading a drivers manual doesn't make you a good driver. I see so many officials who haven't played a single game of organized basketball in their entire life and their ability to analyze and understand the flow of a basketball game is affected by that. Memorizing rules doesn't make you a good official.

 

Also, somebody mentioned something about an official needing to realize nobody is here to watch him/her. AMEN!! I swear some of the officials LIVE for their big block/charge call to fuel/end a run. Sounds like i'm hating on all referees, but I assure you that is not the case. I have a lot of respect for those guys going out there knowing that they will be berated the entire game. Just some can be extremely frustrating.

Not taking either side here, but IMO training and studying means nothing. Much like reading a drivers manual doesn't make you a good driver. I see so many officials who haven't played a single game of organized basketball in their entire life and their ability to analyze and understand the flow of a basketball game is affected by that. Memorizing rules doesn't make you a good official.

 

Also, somebody mentioned something about an official needing to realize nobody is here to watch him/her. AMEN!! I swear some of the officials LIVE for their big block/charge call to fuel/end a run. Sounds like i'm hating on all referees, but I assure you that is not the case. I have a lot of respect for those guys going out there knowing that they will be berated the entire game. Just some can be extremely frustrating.

 

So it's not important to know the rules, officiate summer / AAU games, obtain feedback, watch and break down film, and have video and written critique ?

 

Seems odd to me, but I guess they did it different in your day....

So it's not important to know the rules, officiate summer / AAU games, obtain feedback, watch and break down film, and have video and written critique ?

 

Seems odd to me, but I guess they did it different in your day....

 

Lol relax, that's not what I meant. All of those things are extremely important. All I'm saying is that one's ability to memorize rules can be thrown out the window when you're officiating in a tied game, loser goes home situation, with two passionate coaches screaming, 700 obnoxious Campbell Co fans about to run you out of the gym, and someone's career on the line. It's these situations that come down to one's knowledge and flow of the game vs their ability to memorize rules.

Lol relax, that's not what I meant. All of those things are extremely important. All I'm saying is that one's ability to memorize rules can be thrown out the window when you're officiating in a tied game, loser goes home situation, with two passionate coaches screaming, 700 obnoxious Campbell Co fans about to run you out of the gym, and someone's career on the line. It's these situations that come down to one's knowledge and flow of the game vs their ability to memorize rules.

 

Your scenario has no bearing on the enforcement of rules, but for fun, in that situation, one fanbase is going to want the ref to let the players decide the game, and the other is going to demand the call be made regardless of what is at stake. The only proper answer is to enforce the rule the way the official has been trained.

 

I would contend all of the things you mentioned would be thrown out the window when the time comes to make a potentially game-deciding call, because if an official is thinking about a coach's future, they're not doing their job, and if a coach's future depends on an official's call, he probably isn't doing his job either.

Your scenario has no bearing on the enforcement of rules, but for fun, in that situation, one fanbase is going to want the ref to let the players decide the game, and the other is going to demand the call be made regardless of what is at stake. The only proper answer is to enforce the rule the way the official has been trained.

 

I would contend all of the things you mentioned would be thrown out the window when the time comes to make a potentially game-deciding call, because if an official is thinking about a coach's future, they're not doing their job, and if a coach's future depends on an official's call, he probably isn't doing his job either.

 

Touche! Unfortunately, basketball officials are human and these factors will affect them. Where my point that their understanding of the game and not the rules would need to come into play. I hate technicalities and believing that officials aren't influenced by the coaches/fans is silly. Not saying it should, just embracing that it will and giving my input of what is needed to make the correct call in these situations.

Not taking either side here, but IMO training and studying means nothing. Much like reading a drivers manual doesn't make you a good driver. I see so many officials who haven't played a single game of organized basketball in their entire life and their ability to analyze and understand the flow of a basketball game is affected by that. Memorizing rules doesn't make you a good official.

 

Also, somebody mentioned something about an official needing to realize nobody is here to watch him/her. AMEN!! I swear some of the officials LIVE for their big block/charge call to fuel/end a run. Sounds like i'm hating on all referees, but I assure you that is not the case. I have a lot of respect for those guys going out there knowing that they will be berated the entire game. Just some can be extremely frustrating.

 

Yes, if the rule is not applied properly or that official is lazy and does not get into place to make a call or the official does the regular anticipatory whistle, then knowing the rulebook and memorizing it is pointless and means nothing. Well said and, of course, we are not there to watch the officials and some get it but others do not.