Mike Tirico,on the lack of 3-second calls

[samspann1]

in CBB, during the Purdue-Michigan game: "I watch a lot of Syracuse games, and everyone's in the lane for a really long time against my team."

 

[upperdeck]

the refs have too much to watch with the ball and players to keep track of something not ball related. if you want to fix the problem go to a 4th ref, then the refs can play a diamond with the top ref staying beyond mid court. that gets rid of the ref being out of position on fast breaks too. it would be a chunk of change but worth it

 

[DoctorBombay]

the refs have too much to watch with the ball and players to keep track of something not ball related. if you want to fix the problem go to a 4th ref, then the refs can play a diamond with the top ref staying beyond mid court. that gets rid of the ref being out of position on fast breaks too. it would be a chunk of change but worth it

Agree.
Half the problem is getting them to admit there IS a problem.
NCAA is notorious for being tone-deaf on these kinds of things, so we can expect no resolution for the foreseeable future.

 

[stuckinbig11]

I count out three seconds frequently; the refs totally ignore it.

 

[nyhc666]

the refs have too much to watch with the ball and players to keep track of something not ball related. if you want to fix the problem go to a 4th ref, then the refs can play a diamond with the top ref staying beyond mid court. that gets rid of the ref being out of position on fast breaks too. it would be a chunk of change but worth it

that's funny, because in the 80s and 90s, this stuff was called all the time...whats the excuse? a decline in the competency of eye doctors????

 

[Shark58]

the refs have too much to watch with the ball and players to keep track of something not ball related. if you want to fix the problem go to a 4th ref, then the refs can play a diamond with the top ref staying beyond mid court. that gets rid of the ref being out of position on fast breaks too. it would be a chunk of change but worth it

because its so easy to find 3 competent refs for all the games already

 

[jncuse]

Electronic shock sensors are the answer.

At 2 seconds the players gets a shock. At 3 seconds he gets zinged. This gets progressively stronger as the game goes on.

 

[retro44]

Electronic shock sensors are the answer.

At 2 seconds the players gets a shock. At 3 seconds he gets zinged. This gets progressively stronger as the game goes on.

Interesting concept.....Kind of like a dog collar with strips in the big painted box around the basket using two different frequencies for offense and defense.

Just might have up the workers compensation for the refs when the violating player bails out in a hurry when the sweat gets real heavy.....I likeeee that.

Time to visit shark tank and Cuban will be all in.

 

[Toga]

Electronic shock sensors are the answer.

At 2 seconds the players gets a shock. At 3 seconds he gets zinged. This gets progressively stronger as the game goes on.

4 seconds - convulsions

 

[kirbivore]

5 seconds

 

[skurey]

There should also be defensive 3 seconds but I don't think that will go over too well here

 

[Cowtown]

Three seconds has evolved into an advantage/disadvantage situation. It's not that the refs don't see it, it's that they choose not to make that call. If there's no effect on play, it's not called. And that comes from the top of athletic associations and the NCAA rules committee. Because, trust me, no one wants to see a game with three seconds called literally. And no ref wants to be the guy who calls 3 seconds 8 times per game. In fact, if you call 3 seconds more than once or twice a game, you will never go anywhere. If you do, it's interpreted that you lack a sense of priority. I say "In and out!" or "Get out of there!" at least a dozen times more than I'll make the call, and no coach I know has ever taken exception to that type of pro-active officiating. And you never call 3 seconds on a player in the lane if a player on the perimeter is shooting the ball. Never. You just eat the call. If not, that's another good way to truncate your career. And it tells coaches you're lacking in experience.

Here's a typical scenario: offensive player is in the lane, and gets an entry pass, even at 3 seconds in your mind. The count suspends, and he still gets a chance to shoot, even with a pump fake or two. But if he then kicks it back out, it's a 3 seconds call.

Another: if a player has been staying in the lane too long, even with me saying, "Got out of there, 15!" I know it. If he's in too long (say 4-5 seconds) as soon as he catches an entry pass, the whistle immediately goes and it's a 3 seconds call.

Just an innocent point, it's amazing how many out there don't know there's no three seconds when the ball is on the rim, or getting tapped back up toward the basket. I hear even coaches and players asking for that call in that situation, and it just tells you how inexperienced they are - especially with a rule book.

edit: here's another point from the rulebook few people know: a player in the lane must have the opportunity to leave the lane before you make the call. If a player is trying to leave the lane and is slowed down because two "trees" have him pinned inside, and he's still trying to get out rather than set up camp, you don't make the call.

And ideally, it's a call you want early, if at all. For if you haven't made a 3 seconds call earlier in the game, don't you dare call it in the last few minutes of a close game unless it's painfully obvious. Because obviously you've been letting it go, and you don't want to change down the stretch in a close game.

 

[Noexcuse]

Three seconds has evolved into an advantage/disadvantage situation. It's not that the refs don't see it, it's that they choose not to make that call. If there's no effect on play, it's not called. And that comes from the top of athletic associations and the NCAA rules committee. Because, trust me, no one wants to see a game with three seconds called literally. And no ref wants to be the guy who calls 3 seconds 8 times per game. In fact, if you call 3 seconds more than once or twice a game, you will never go anywhere. If you do, it's interpreted that you lack a sense of priority. I say "In and out!" or "Get out of there!" at least a dozen times more than I'll make the call, and no coach I know has ever taken exception to that type of pro-active officiating. And you never call 3 seconds on a player in the lane if a player on the perimeter is shooting the ball. Never. You just eat the call. if not, that's another good way to truncate your career. And it tells coaches you're lacking in experience.

Here's a typical scenario: offensive player is in the lane, and gets an entry pass, even at 3 seconds in your mind. The count suspends, and he still gets a chance to shoot, even with a pump fake or two. But if he then kicks it back out, it's a 3 seconds call.

Another: if a player has been staying in the lane too long, even with me saying, "Got out of there, 15!" I know it. If he's in too long (say 4-5 seconds) as soon as he catches an entry pass, the whistle immediately goes and it's a 3 seconds call.

Just an innocent point, it's amazing how many out there don't know there's no three seconds when the ball is on the rim, or getting tapped back up toward the basket. I hear even coaches and players asking for that call in that situation, and it just tells you how inexperienced they are - especially with a rule book.

Good post. That said, we seem to play against a lot of slugs who basically pitch a tent in the lane when they are on offense.

 

[Cowtown]

Good post. That said, we seem to play against a lot of slugs who basically pitch a tent in the lane when they are on offense.

I don't see nearly as many games as the rest of you do, and the games I do see are on TV where the camera follows the ball, but I gotta hope that goes both ways. Some teams run a style of offense where there's a lot more continuous motion, so they get called much less for that.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Cowtown, did you notice that Clifford guy today? He rarely stepped totally outside the lane. I disagree about living in the lane and its' effect on plays, particularly with zone defenses. I appreciate the information though because I know that some players I've coached, been on teams with, have said the same thing - refs don't call 3 seconds, they don't care. I had always told them they were wrong - guess I was the one who was wrong. When I played, it was called and it did matter because it was recognized that it did effect play and strategy inside the lane for sure particularly on inside-outside and visa-versa plays. I'm surprised that it's an official determination instead of just inefficiency and a lack of emphasis on the 3 second rule. Sadly what you are saying , just confirms what I've been seeing and even mentioning in different game chatrooms.

 

[Cowtown]

Cowtown, did you notice that Clifford guy today? He rarely stepped totally outside the lane. I disagree about living in the lane and its' effect on plays, particularly with zone defenses. I appreciate the information though because I know that some players I've coached, been on teams with, have said the same thing - refs don't call 3 seconds, they don't care. I had always told them they were wrong - guess I was the one who was wrong. When I played, it was called and it did matter because it was recognized that it did effect play and strategy inside the lane for sure particularly on inside-outside and visa-versa plays. I'm surprised that it's an official determination instead of just inefficiency and a lack of emphasis on the 3 second rule. Sadly what you are saying , just confirms what I've been seeing and even mentioning in different game chatrooms.

No TV or internet feed here today, sorry.

And it's not that "the refs don't care." The game evolves, and so do the rules. However, what changes more than people know is how rules are interpreted and applied. This usually is covered at the tip off meeting every September, and is handled as a "point of emphasis." And it always comes from the National Interpreter, or the referee's association, but it always starts at the very top. It really comes down to the fact no one came out to watch the refs, and as a ref you need to understand not only that, but what it means.

Think of it this way, in a story an old ref once told me. When you first start reffing, you call the rules you know (and no rookie knows them all). Then after a couple seasons your rules knowledge improves, and you start reffing the players, because that's what you see: players. And a few seasons later, if you're going to be a legitimate official, you ref the game. And to bring it back to where we began, a ref calling 3 seconds all the time is counter-productive to the game. For it's about players playing, not referees reffing. Sometimes when a game is flowing smoothly, the clock is running and everyone is playing well and running hard, the last thing you want to do is screw up a great game with unnecessary whistles. If you do, you're not part of the game, you're in the way of the game. Sometimes you swallow a call for the benefit of the game. An example is when a player who drives and is bumped a little by a guy trying to play honest defense (has position and doesn't swipe at the ball). The ball goes cleanly through the basket, the shooter lands squarely and in balance, and it's been a clean game thus far, don't make a needless call. However in a rough or sloppy game, you probably would lean toward make the call there.

Another ref I learned from, Dave Libbey, who was the best ref I ever met (several Final 4's), said to me, "Everyone knows what they'll call. Do you know what you won't call, and why?" Then he said, "Before you make a call or a no-call, what does it have to do with the game?" For no one needs refs in order to have a free throw shooting contest. We earn our game fee on what we won't call, and applying it consistently through the game. I'm hardly the brightest duck on the pond, but these are some things I know from experience and can share without a whole gym full of people yelling, questioning my ancestry, and trying to hurt me.

Hope that helps some.

 

[tipphill]

the refs have too much to watch with the ball and players to keep track of something not ball related. if you want to fix the problem go to a 4th ref, then the refs can play a diamond with the top ref staying beyond mid court. that gets rid of the ref being out of position on fast breaks too. it would be a chunk of change but worth it

no way---there is a dedicated ref in the arc and paint---3 refs are plenty--they ref in a zone . this is not ref by committee

 

[Cowtown]

no way---there is a dedicated ref in the arc and paint---3 refs are plenty--they ref in a zone . this is not ref by committee

Agreed, each of the three has a primary zone. And it varies through a possession, depending on where the ball is. And i you're not watching your primary, who is? There are too many self-appointed heroes who watch just the ball, and jump calls outside their primary And believe you me, it causes some shouting - okay, growling - matches when it doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

edit: And, I might add, announcers - especially ex-players - usually know about the rules. So don't take 'em too seriously. Short edit: Mike Tirico, clam up. If you want to talk rules, first learn the rules.

 

[pulaski74]

No TV or internet feed here today, sorry.

And it's not that "the refs don't care." The game evolves, and so do the rules. However, what changes more than people know is how rules are interpreted and applied. This usually is covered at the tip off meeting every September, and is handled as a "point of emphasis." And it always comes from the National Interpreter, or the referee's association, but it always starts at the very top. It really comes down to the fact no one came out to watch the refs, and as a ref you need to understand not only that, but what it means.

Think of it this way, in a story an old ref once told me. When you first start reffing, you call the rules you know (and no rookie knows them all). Then after a couple seasons your rules knowledge improves, and you start reffing the players, because that's what you see: players. And a few seasons later, if you're going to be a legitimate official, you ref the game. And to bring it back to where we began, a ref calling 3 seconds all the time is counter-productive to the game. For it's about players playing, not referees reffing. Sometimes when a game is flowing smoothly, the clock is running and everyone is playing well and running hard, the last thing you want to do is screw up a great game with unnecessary whistles. If you do, you're not part of the game, you're in the way of the game. Sometimes you swallow a call for the benefit of the game. An example is when a player who drives and is bumped a little by a guy trying to play honest defense (has position and doesn't swipe at the ball). The ball goes cleanly through the basket, the shooter lands squarely and in balance, and it's been a clean game thus far, don't make a needless call. However in a rough or sloppy game, you probably would lean toward make the call there.

Another ref I learned from, Dave Libbey, who was the best ref I ever met (several Final 4's), said to me, "Everyone knows what they'll call. Do you know what you won't call, and why?" Then he said, "Before you make a call or a no-call, what does it have to do with the game?" For no one needs refs in order to have a free throw shooting contest. We earn our game fee on what we won't call, and applying it consistently through the game. I'm hardly the brightest duck on the pond, but these are some things I know from experience and can share without a whole gym full of people yelling, questioning my ancestry, and trying to hurt me.

Hope that helps some.

I kind of like what you are saying, but all i hear is get the ball into the middle of a zone, so if a team plays exclusive zone shouldn't the refs alert the opposing coach pregame that they will be calling 3 second violations because it gives them an advantage to camp out in the zone? kinda like old fashioned laying out the ground rules? I think tirico has a valid point, but you can't see that on tv.

 

[Cheriehoop]

Agreed, each of the three has a primary zone. And it varies through a possession, depending on where the ball is. And i you're not watching your primary, who is? There are too many self-appointed heroes who watch just the ball, and jump calls outside their primary And believe you me, it causes some shouting - okay, growling - matches when it doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

edit: And, I might add, announcers - especially ex-players - usually know about the rules. So don't take 'em too seriously. Short edit: Mike Tirico, clam up. If you want to talk rules, first learn the rules.

I'm confused, I've seen the same thing that Tirico has (kind of like the coach out of the box rule that also isn't called on obvious offenders) and you stated that refs have been told not to call it , how is it a misunderstanding of the rules? You said that it "isn't that refs don't see it it's that they choose not to call it" because of priorities that are set by higher ups trying to avoid affecting the flow of the game. With all the talk about cleaning up the physicality inside the lane, constant proposals to widen the lane etc I would think that enforcing the existing 3 second current rule as written would be considered a very good start by the referee association.

If by enforcing a rule it's thought that it would cause too much disruption , couldn't that be interpreted that teams are breaking it too much ? I could understand a verbal warning at only the first occurrence but any repeat then be called. Again thank you for your insight.

 

[OttoMets]

I'm confused, I've seen the same thing that Tirico has (kind of like the coach out of the box rule that also isn't called on obvious offenders) and you stated that refs have been told not to call it , how is it a misunderstanding of the rules? You said that it "isn't that refs don't see it it's that they choose not to call it" because of priorities that are set by higher ups trying to avoid affecting the flow of the game. With all the talk about cleaning up the physicality inside the lane, constant proposals to widen the lane etc I would think that enforcing the existing 3 second current rule as written would be considered a very good start by the referee association.

If by enforcing a rule it's thought that it would cause too much disruption , couldn't that be interpreted that teams are breaking it too much ? I could understand a verbal warning at only the first occurrence but any repeat then be called. Again thank you for your insight.

Excellent points.

The "let the players decide the game" thing doesn't have a lot of meaning. Basketball's a great game with logical rules. It's better when the rules are enforced.

 

[NYCorange]

No TV or internet feed here today, sorry.

And it's not that "the refs don't care." The game evolves, and so do the rules. However, what changes more than people know is how rules are interpreted and applied. This usually is covered at the tip off meeting every September, and is handled as a "point of emphasis." And it always comes from the National Interpreter, or the referee's association, but it always starts at the very top. It really comes down to the fact no one came out to watch the refs, and as a ref you need to understand not only that, but what it means.

Think of it this way, in a story an old ref once told me. When you first start reffing, you call the rules you know (and no rookie knows them all). Then after a couple seasons your rules knowledge improves, and you start reffing the players, because that's what you see: players. And a few seasons later, if you're going to be a legitimate official, you ref the game. And to bring it back to where we began, a ref calling 3 seconds all the time is counter-productive to the game. For it's about players playing, not referees reffing. Sometimes when a game is flowing smoothly, the clock is running and everyone is playing well and running hard, the last thing you want to do is screw up a great game with unnecessary whistles. If you do, you're not part of the game, you're in the way of the game. Sometimes you swallow a call for the benefit of the game. An example is when a player who drives and is bumped a little by a guy trying to play honest defense (has position and doesn't swipe at the ball). The ball goes cleanly through the basket, the shooter lands squarely and in balance, and it's been a clean game thus far, don't make a needless call. However in a rough or sloppy game, you probably would lean toward make the call there.

Another ref I learned from, Dave Libbey, who was the best ref I ever met (several Final 4's), said to me, "Everyone knows what they'll call. Do you know what you won't call, and why?" Then he said, "Before you make a call or a no-call, what does it have to do with the game?" For no one needs refs in order to have a free throw shooting contest. We earn our game fee on what we won't call, and applying it consistently through the game. I'm hardly the brightest duck on the pond, but these are some things I know from experience and can share without a whole gym full of people yelling, questioning my ancestry, and trying to hurt me.

Hope that helps some.

I really appreciate this perspective--it makes sense and helps me understand as I'm not a ref. From your experience, do refs stop calling stuff that teams do just because it would bog down the game with unnecessary free throws/play stoppages? I'm thinking specifically about Buzz Williams' Marquette and Vtech teams--they hold off the ball EVERY play, shove people boxing out blatantly, and sit in the lane for HOURS (although this year, they were much better all around). It reminds me sort of the Seattle Seahawks Defence--they're super talented, but also super smart about how they play the rules. They lead the league in Pass interference and defensive holding penalties every year by a wide margin, but also in passing defence because they know that the officials simply arent't willing to call it on every play/in the biggest situations, so they just bump and hold every play and dare the refs to make them stop.

 

[Cowtown]

I'm confused, I've seen the same thing that Tirico has (kind of like the coach out of the box rule that also isn't called on obvious offenders) and you stated that refs have been told not to call it , how is it a misunderstanding of the rules? You said that it "isn't that refs don't see it it's that they choose not to call it" because of priorities that are set by higher ups trying to avoid affecting the flow of the game. With all the talk about cleaning up the physicality inside the lane, constant proposals to widen the lane etc I would think that enforcing the existing 3 second current rule as written would be considered a very good start by the referee association.

If by enforcing a rule it's thought that it would cause too much disruption , couldn't that be interpreted that teams are breaking it too much ? I could understand a verbal warning at only the first occurrence but any repeat then be called. Again thank you for your insight.

Everyone wants to watch players play. No one wants to watch officials ref. So if I can say "Get out of there" a dozen times and the players do it, it's a lot better than even a single "three seconds" call. So you save the call for when it's needed or necessary, and that decision rests with the officials. Period. Basketball is not a democracy.

So I'm sorry, I'm not too sure what more I can tell anyone. It's not so much that officials are told not to call it, rather they're told how to call it, and it involves judgment. Everyone can see the players and the lanes, but no one can see judgment going on in the referee's head. And again, it boils down to advantage/disadvantage. If a player is gaining an advantage, or creating a disadvantage, by doing something against the rules, then the ref has a decision to make. The officials' job is not to ram every last rule in the book down everyone's throat, their job is to make the game fair. And if they relax on something like lane violations both ways, that's fair. And there's just a lot more important things going on during a basketball game than possible lane violations. It's low on the priority list, and that's just the way it is.

Perception is important here, too. Fans, announcers, coaches, players and referees all see things differently. Always have and always will. Just because a Mike Tirico says something doesn't mean he's right. One of the reasons I don't watch NBA is because the announcers often say outrageously silly things about rules, and often say things about a play that happened, when I saw the same play and they're just plain wrong. College ball announcers are often the same, but I love the game so I often watch it with the sound off. Coaches are funny that way, too. Sometimes when a good post player is having a good game, and the opposing team is having trouble trying to stop him, the coach will start with the "He's camping in there!" or, "How long in there?" because if they can influence even one call their way, that might be the difference in a close game. So they try. :noidea:

If an announcer says or even implies that stricter enforcement of lane violations will help clean up physical play in the lane, that doesn't mean he's right. If officials became "three second Nazis" they're not going to turn a Przemek Karnowski into Bambi. Physical play happens all over the floor, not just in the lane and you can't call everything that happens because soon you'll foul everyone out and you won't have a game any more. The reason the focus or emphasis is on lane/low post play is because one way or another the ball's coming in there (especially since the shot clock came along) because that's where the basket is. So you try to protect the ball handler, and especially the shooter, and you live with the rest as long as it's even or fair.

 

[Cowtown]

I really appreciate this perspective--it makes sense and helps me understand as I'm not a ref. From your experience, do refs stop calling stuff that teams do just because it would bog down the game with unnecessary free throws/play stoppages? I'm thinking specifically about Buzz Williams' Marquette and Vtech teams--they hold off the ball EVERY play, shove people boxing out blatantly, and sit in the lane for HOURS (although this year, they were much better all around). It reminds me sort of the Seattle Seahawks Defence--they're super talented, but also super smart about how they play the rules. They lead the league in Pass interference and defensive holding penalties every year by a wide margin, but also in passing defence because they know that the officials simply arent't willing to call it on every play/in the biggest situations, so they just bump and hold every play and dare the refs to make them stop.

I hated Williams' Marquette teams. They were just thugs.

 

[Cowtown]

Excellent points.

The "let the players decide the game" thing doesn't have a lot of meaning. Basketball's a great game with logical rules. It's better when the rules are enforced.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time ...