Refereeing High School Basketball. Let's Look at Plays  

srsly.

@@BetterOfficials I can see why center and lead didn't pick up on it, but WTF was trail looking at to miss it?

They got a large piece of the rim though, if they touched the ball or not - and it looked like they did touch the ball, but can't say for 100% sure. Basket interference.

Bob Rinquest a throw or pass is not a shot attempt so by rule it’s worth 2 disregard the 3 point line in this situation

@brinquest @ischar23 I haven’t had a chance to see the play, so I’ll hold back on making a judgement, but I would like to include that the NFHS Rule 5-2-1 states that: “A successful try, tap, or THROWN BALL from the field by a player who is located behind the team’s own 19-foot, 9-inch arc counts three points […]” We know that by rule a try and a tap are both shot attempts, so I find it noteworthy that they specifically also included the verbiage “thrown ball” in this scoring rule. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to see the play for myself if I can locate it.

Ok, I saw the play. It was an inbound throw with 0.2 seconds on the game clock. To cover all bases, let’s establish that the ball is located behind the 19-foot 9-inch arc, since the throw-in spot is located on the sideline. The ball is not legally contacted by anyone on the court during the inbound throw. The ball is illegally contacted by the defender as that defender reaches up through the basket from below to contact the ball while the ball is outside the imaginary cylinder (with the basket being the lower base of that cylinder). By rule, touching the ball outside the cylinder while reaching through the basket from below is Basket Interference (4-6-3). I think up to this point we are all on the same page. Now, we have a definitive answer supported by a rule as to how many points are awarded for this Basket Interference; Rule 9 Section 11 (Basket Interference) Penalty 1: “If the violation is at the opponent’s basket, the opponents are awarded one point if during a free-throw, three points if during a three-point TRY, and two points in ANY OTHER CASE […]”. We know that a throw-in cannot be a “try”, as supported by Rule 9-2-7. Therefore, this Basket Interference cannot be awarded the benefits of a three-point try even though the throw originated from behind the 19-foot 9-inch arc. We also know that a throw-in is not a free-throw. This leaves us with the only other possible award for this Basket Interference penalty, “two points in any other case.” Since the throw-in was not legally touched prior to the violation, the game clock will not have started and will still have 0.2 seconds remaining. Also per Rule 9-11 Penalty 1, after the two points have been awarded, the official will signal to the entitled team (the team who committed Basket Interference) that they may move along the end line during the ensuing throw-in, after which that official then hands or bounces the ball to the entitled team for that throw-in. With only 0.2 seconds remaining on the game clock, the only way this inbounding team can score is if the defenders also commit a basket interference, they commit a foul which is entitled to free-throws, or if a player taps the inbounded throw without first catching the ball. Rule 5-2-5 “When play is resumed with a throw-in or free-throw and three-tenths (0.3) of a second or less remains on the clock, a player may not gain control of the ball and try for a field goal. In this situation ONLY A TAP could score.”

Coach did not see the flagrant foul. He was just protesting the no call on the charge call which is ok until he would not stop. This would be a warning in my game.

That’s at the calling official’s judgment. The line that divides that is a triangle from corner to corner to top of the 3-point arc even with the center of the basket.

@@detroitrockcity8 From corner to elbow and includes top of circle. We refer to it as the "rocket." To me, this is clearly outside of that area as it is above the 3-point line. But I agree it could be the calling official's judgment.

It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma. To be sure...

probably b/c these games are played on Friday and it takes him time to get the videos, review them, break them down and then post them.

@@BetterOfficials it's Russian?

It would be a tough call to make in real time. The key would be to identify this kind of action and be ready for when it went too far. If the screener runs over / through the defender - easy. I'd agree with Brice, this one would tough to call and then sell. Make sure to get the obvious.

That play is clearly by every definition of the rule is an illegal screen

@@ischar23 I'm NOT seeing it as "clearly" an illegal screen, and those that keep SAYING that are not EXPLAINING why they are saying that.

@@bricefleckenstein9666 Did you ever get any kind of answer to this question from any source? I do not see how it is an illegal screen under NFHS screening rule language.

@@mconnors625 Nope, never got any information on why or even WHICH part of the play is supposed to be an illegal screen. There are a couple of actions I can see being borderline "might be" but NOTHING in there that is "clearly" an illegal screen.