Colorado Springs

CSBOA Meeting Minutes for meeting on 4/11/2013

Attending: Raymond Joe, Michael Hernandez, Carlos Hernandez, Shelly Rush, Gary Montel, Bill Huffor and Chuck French.
Absent: Bob Lantzy, Shelly Anderson

Meeting called to order at 6 PM.

First order of business:

We opened the meeting with a discussion about the meeting that Raymond Joe and Bill Huffor had with Joseph Echegoyen. They met with Joseph and heard his complaints which mainly had to do with him not being assigned varsity games in 2012 after being assigned what he thought was a varsity schedule in 2011. He feels that his ranking should be better than what it is. Both Raymond and Bill explained to Joseph what the procedure is for being evaluated and having his ranking reviewed which is done every year at the ranking meeting. If he has attended any camps or had anyone do evaluations on him he needs to communicate that to the board for us to consider. He has not done that and Bill has asked him to communicate directly with him since he is the new Member at Large. He has asked the board for a letter of recommendation so he can pursue games in another league. Bill will take care of the letter of recommendation for him. Bill informed Joseph that if he stays in our group that he needs to get three (3) 100 level officials to evaluate him in the month of December.

Next we discussed Ron Hall’s inquiry about summer league basketball and its assigning. Raymond Joe let Ron know that CSBOA has nothing to do with the assigning of summer league basketball. If he wants to get involved with that he needs to contact the schools on his own.

Next Gary Montel discussed the IAABO Camp this summer at CSU-Pueblo. They are expecting +40 campers on June 14, 15 and 16. Tom and Donnie are planning on coming out. There will be 5 courts used and this is a Boys Basketball camp. We are expecting to have a number of our members attending but we don’t know the final numbers at this time.

Shelly Rush then brought up the fact that at the end of the year when the members of CSBOA vote on the officials for playoff games there were names on the ballot that were not eligible. There were many wasted votes that were cast for these officials and those votes could be cast to help others make the playoffs. She is suggesting that we not include names of people who are not eligible for the playoffs that year. Gary Montel said he would take on this challenge and discuss it with Tom Robinson when he meets with him.

Gary Montel went on to ask all of us to:

1. Check our roles as a CSBOA Executive Board member. Are we fulfilling our role on this board? Can we be doing a better job in our assignment?
2. Recently we had Mr. Peter Webb the IAABO National Rules Interpreter attend our Colorado State Basketball tournament.
He is IAABO strong on the mechanic’s that we need to be using.
One Rule, One interpretation!
He evaluated our officials at the State tournament and he came away disappointed in many ways. He saw some great official’s but he questioned if we in Colorado were sold on our IAABO mechanic’s.

And that is the question that Gary proposes to us? Are we sold on IAABO???

And if we are then we need to be preaching and teaching the mechanic’s from day one and not just at the State tournament! We do not have the accountability that they have in Maine where Peter Webb is from. In Maine if you are observed not using IAABO mechanic’s in the playoffs you are done. We need to get to that point in Colorado was Peter Webb’s message to us!

Art vs. Science? Peter says that officiating is not an art!

Rule vs. Advantage/Disadvantage?

Gary wants to do all 10 Rules next year during our meetings taking one rule per meeting.

He would like to have 10 different speakers tackling one rule per meeting.

Next we discussed the scrimmages for next season: Michael Hernandez and Chuck French would like to propose that we do something similar that we do in high school softball. We would like to pick a scrimmage date preferably a Saturday before the season starts. Choose several gyms throughout the city that have a minimum of two gym’s. Have all of this communicated way ahead of time with the AD’s and head coaches that we are only going to provide officials at these designated gym’s and the cost to participate in these scrimmages is $100 per team (Varsity, JV or Freshman). This will guarantee officials for the full day of scrimmages and the host team does not pay. The host team can run a concession stand and will make a good profit that day and if they only have a smaller gym we suggest that they run their JV or Freshman games in that gym. Some gym’s that we would use would be LP, Widefield, Doherty, Palmer, Cheyenne Mountain, Mitchell, CSCS, Air Academy, Peyton, Calhan, Simla?

The money will go into the CSBOA account and we can use this money for needs that we have in the organization or to supplement the banquet. In order to make sure that we get enough officials for these scrimmages we suggest that we give the officials credit for one meeting for helping officiate at least a two game set.

Everyone was in agreement that we should give this a try and see if this will help us with the challenges that we seem to have every year with the scrimmages. Mike and Chuck will head up the scrimmages.

Lastly, we discussed the, “Tip the Ref’s” fundraiser that Bill Huffor is heading up. The date is Sunday, July 28th at Texas T-Bone at 4659 Centennial Blvd. from 11-2 PM. Bill will be contacting everyone that he will be asking to sell tickets and the goal is to have 40 people selling 15 tickets each at $20 so a total of 450 tickets. All of the board members are expected to be one of the 40 sellers. All board members are also expected to work that day at the restaurant to help serve and clean up.

More details about this event will follow.

It was agreed that we would reimburse Bill Huffor for the CSBOA pin’s that he had made that we will be selling for $5 a pin and the profits will go into the Cancer Fund.

Our next meeting is scheduled for May 15th at 6 PM.

Meeting was dismissed at 8:30 PM.

Chuck French
Secretary
CSBOA

Dave Hall High School Instructional Camps

University of Colorado

Boulder, Colorado

June 6-8     Thursday (PM) Friday and Saturday

Tuition $200

University of Northern Colorado

Greeley, Colorado

June 13-15   Thursday (PM) Friday and Saturday

Tuition $200

University of Wyoming

Laramie, Wyoming

June 20-22 Thursday (PM) Friday and Saturday

Tuition $100

Contact Dave

Contact Dave Hall at 303-895-5450

davehall5450@msn.com

Randy Campbell’s “Rise to the Top” High School Officiating Camp

University of colorado

June 21-23, 2013

 June 21 Crew Chief Camp $100 June 22-23 Developmental Camp $100 June 21-23 Both Camps $140

Contact Randy at  Randy Campbell P.O. BOX 950 Monument, CO 80132

rcampbell0614@comcast.net

http://form.jotformpro.com/form/20967205816962

(719) 660-0069

In the two-person officiating system the lead is best served if he/she “mirrors” the ball. This allows them to cover the sideline more effectively as well as match ups below the gray area in the leads primary area.
In the three-person system the lead may be better served if he/she only goes wide enough to get an open look on primary match-ups which usually occur near the lane line. The lead doesn’t need to worry about the sideline or the match-ups near them as they belong to the trail official.
By not going as wide in the three-person system the lead official can get to “close down” quicker when appropriate, thereby being better positioned to initiate a rotation when ball movement calls for it.
The key point to this discussion is that when the ball is up on top of the key in the hands of the point guard the lead official may best serve his crew by being in close down or even a step in the lane. Then if the ball goes from the point to the elbow the led can be on the move to the ball side. This becomes a much more pro-active rotation than beginning it from eight feet wider than the lane line where it may take the lead two steps just to get to close down, let alone completing a rotation.
Also, give some thought to how open you want to be during the rotation process. Go across the lane with the torso open to the floor and parallel to the end line, rather than going across the lane with the inside shoulder parallel to the base line which is characteristic of a closed rotation.
Lastly, give focus to where you are looking when you rotate. If you have your eyes on the ball out on the periphery you are probably looking at the wrong place. We already have an official looking at the ball. The lead may need to be zeroing in at post play, incoming cutters and screens to more effectively serve his/her crew.
In the accompanying video clip the lead official is appropriately wide and then goes to close down when the ball goes to the point and rotates in a timely and open fashion to get to ball side pro-actively

Sometimes basketball officials confuse the act of delaying returning to the court after being out of bounds legally with leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. Hopefully, you will never have to deal with either one of these situations, but if the occasion raises its ugly head it may be good for you to have some idea about each of these rule situations.

For a player to be guilty of delaying his/her return to the playing court after legally being out of bounds, the act must be seen as purposeful and intentionally deceitful by the official. Make sure the act is an elephant and not a mouse if you decide to get involved.
Usually this act, that carries a technical foul as its penalty, occurs on a throw-in when the thrower waits for a second or two after releasing the ball, and then runs four or five steps out of bounds, then enters in bounds behind a screen to receive a pass and presumably an open shot.

Leaving the court for an unauthorized reason is a violation and is not penalized with a technical foul. An example might be a post person leaving the court to try and avoid a three-second call. Another classic example is an offensive player running out of bounds around a double screen near the end line. The basic rule premise is that the game is played in bounds and leaving the court to get an advantage is punishable by a violation call giving the ball to the opposition nearest where the offender went out of bounds. The violation occurs when the player goes out of bounds. There are a couple of exceptions, however. See below.

Don’t confuse great hustle where a player’s momentum takes him or her out of bounds with leaving the court illegally. Picture a play where an athletic player jumps in the air near the side line to bat an errant pass back in bounds and his/her momentum takes him/her out of bounds. This play is perfectly legal. The same is true of a player who drives hard to the bucket for a layup and his/her momentum takes that player out of bounds. Perfectly legal!

Below is a clip of an official calling a technical foul on a thrower for delaying his return to the court after releasing the ball on a throw-in. the video is not the best quality but the action of the thrower does not look purposeful or deceitful to me. This call was made twice in this game. This is not an elephant, it isn’t even a mouse. Make it be big if you are going to gt involved in this.

RULE BOOK AND CASE RULINGS ON DELAY RETURNING AFTER BEING LEGALLY OUT OF BOUNDS

10-3-2

ART. 2
A player shall not:
Purposely and/or deceitfully delay returning after legally being out of bounds.

CASE RULINGS FOR 10.3.2

10.3.2 SITUATION A:

A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. A1 completes the throw-in to A2 and then purposefully delays his/her return by taking four or five steps along the end line prior to coming inbounds behind a screen set by A3 and A4. A1 gets a return pass from A2 and takes an unchallenged try for goal.
RULING: A1 is charged with a technical foul for purposefully delaying his/her return to the court following the throw-in. A1′s movement out of bounds along the end line was to take advantage of the screen and return to the court in a more advantageous position.
10.3.2

SITUATION B:
After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both Team A and Team B, A5 goes to the bench and remains there, mistakenly believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even though Team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A’s front court when the coach of Team A realizes they have only four players. The coach yells for A5 to return and he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches up with the play.

RULING: No technical foul is charged to A5. A5′s return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court.

RULE BOOK AND CASE RULINGS ON LEAVING THE FLOOR FOR AN UNAUTHORIZED REASON

9-3-3

ART. 3
A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)

CASE RULINGS FOR 9.3.3

9.3.3 SITUATION A:
A1 receives a pass while in the restricted area of the lane. A1 passes the ball to A2 outside the three-point line. In order to get the three-second count stopped, A1 steps directly out of bounds under A’s basket.

RULING: A1 is charged with a violation for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason. (9-7)

9.3.3 SITUATION D:
The score is tied 60 to 60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.

RULING: B5′s intentional violation should be ignored and A1′s activity should continue without interruption.
COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

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.

9.3.3 SITUATION C:
A1 and A2 set a double screen near the end line. B3 intentionally goes out of bounds outside the end line to avoid being detained by A1 and A2. Just as B3 goes out of bounds, A3′s try is in flight.

RULING: B3 is called for a leaving-the-floor violation. Team A will receive the ball out of bounds at a spot nearest to where the violation occurred. Since the violation is on the defense, the ball does not become dead until the try has ended. If the try is successful, it will count. (6-7-9 Exception d)

10-3-6

Leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust or intimidation.

CASE RULING FOR 10.3.6

10.3.6 SITUATION C:
With 4 minutes remaining in the second quarter, B1 commits his/her third foul against airborne shooter A1; the try is unsuccessful. Team B’s coach sends B6 to the scorer’s table to replace B1 after A1′s first free-throw. B1′s replacement may not enter the game until after A1′s first free throw. B1, disgusted with the official’s call and realizing he/she will soon leave the game, goes and sits on the end of Team B’s bench just after the official reports the foul.

RULING: B1 is assessed an unsporting technical foul for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate disgust. A1 will attempt the two shooting-foul free throws followed by any Team A member attempting the two free throws for the technical foul. (10-3-6i; 3-3-2)

Traveling and especially the traveling violation that involves changing pivot feet gives the offense a huge advantage over the defender, It is very difficult to play defense as it is but when the offensive player gets to establish two or more pivot feet the task becomes even more daunting. Such is the case with the “spin travel.”

The spin travel often looks smooth and fluent even dance like, but when it is broken down into its component parts one can see that the offensive player establishes a pivot foot then takes a pivot step away from the pivot foot. The offensive player then picks up his/her pivot foot, spins and puts it down again and then begins a shot.

This illegal play can be begun facing the basket(off a dribble drive) or with the back to the basket(the post pivot). The facing the basket “spin” play becomes a full spin while if this illegal play is begun with the back to the basket it becomes a half “spin.”

This is a difficult play to officiate. The official must learn the component parts. Find the initial pivot foot. See which way the non pivot foot goes. If it goes away from the pivot foot be ready for the spin. The original pivot foot will be raised, moved and set down again before the shot is begun.

Below is a short video clip that shows a strong post player flash into the paint and then he takes a “gather” dribble. His left foot is then established as his pivot foot as he takes a step with his right foot. The pivot foot is then lifted during the “spin” and is re-set with the post player facing the basket. Finally the shot is begun. Not that the non-pivot foot step is away from the initial pivot foot. If that pivot step would cross the pivot foot then the play would be legal because a new pivot foot would not be established.

During the Monday December 3, 2012 CSBOA meeting Gary Montel showed some video clips featuring some block-charge plays.
There seemed to be some misunderstanding about rule guidelines regarding obtaining legal guarding position and then maintaining legal guarding position.

When watching the video below there were statements from the viewers such as “She was never set.” Note in the rule shown below there is nothing mentioned about the defender having to be “set.” The defender just has to obtain legal guarding position. She can obtain LGP while moving.
The defender was retreating and moving backward the entire sequence. She never moved forward, or even obliquely forward. She was back on her heels the whole time.

The offensive player never got her head and shoulders past the defender. If there was significant contact, that contact took place on the defenders torso. If a foul needed to be called it needed to be on the offense.

RULE REFERENCES
4-23
ART. 2..obtain
To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard’s torso must be facing the opponent.

ART. 3…maintain
After the initial legal guarding position is obtained:
a. The guard may have one or both feet on the playing court or be airborne, provided he/she has inbound status.
b. The guard is not required to continue facing the opponent.
c. The guard may move laterally or obliquely to maintain position, ¬provided it is not toward the opponent when contact occurs.
d. The guard may raise hands or jump within his/her own vertical plane.
e. The guard may turn or duck to absorb the shock of imminent contact.

Case Book Reference

4.23.3 SITUATION A:
B1 has obtained a legal guarding position on A1 and moves to maintain it. A1 moves laterally and contacts defender B1 but does not get his/her head and shoulders past the torso of B1. Contact occurs on the side of B1′s torso.
RULING: Player-control foul by A1. (4-7-2)

The Video
Video never lies, but sometimes cannot show the truth. In the video below, the camera has a “closed” look and the official has the open look. From the camera view we don’t know how significant the contact was. However, the official with the open look thought there was enough contact to warrant a player control foul.

Rule citation 9-9-3 describes the three exceptions to the back court rule. All three exceptions involve a player who becomes airborne from front court, gaining possession of the ball while in the air and then landing in back court. Normally these situations would be back court violations.

Remember also that the location of an airborne player is the same as where he/she left the court. 4-35-3

The three exceptions involve a jump ball, a throw-in and a defender.

Jumper A1 taps the ball toward non jumper A2 who leaps high into the air from his/her front court and gains control of the ball. Non jumper A2 then proceeds to land in back court. Because of the exception granted in 9-9-3 this is a legal play.

A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in at about the 28 foot mark. A1 in-bounds a high pass to A2 who jumps from his/her front court grabs the ball while airborne and lands in back court. This is an exception to the back court rule as stated in 9-9-3.

Defender B3 is helping his team press Team A. A1 passes to ball toward the division line toward A2. B3 leaps from his front court (Team A’s back court) and intercepts A1’s pass while in the air. B3 then lands in his back court. Legal play! This is the third exception to the back court rule. (See video below)

Here are a couple of exceptions to the exceptions.
• It does not matter whether the first foot down lands in front court or back court. The exception applies

• The exception only applies to the original airborne player who caught the ball. If he or she passes the ball while in the air to a teammate in back court a violation has occurred.

• The throw-in exception ends when the throw-in ends. So if A1 passes the ball to A2 but B3 tips it, the throw-in ends. Thereafter, if A2 caught the ball in the air after leaving front court and landed in back court, a violation would occur.

The video below is a FIBA instructional effort. Although some of the terminology is different the rule interpretation is the same. This is an excellent video to view to help you try to upgrade your understanding of calling traveling.