|
Royals Coach
Coach, we're not changing the way we're calling the game. The calls are different because the tactics being used are different. The strategy of the game has changed. Don't confuse incidental contact, with a player who is trying to foul. A player who is trying to foul is not committing incidental contact. Am I suppose to say, "You're not hitting him hard enough so it's just incidental contact,"? I can't find the logic in that.
Just because we know that the foul is going to be committed does not mean that the foul is to be called an intentional foul. Fouling at the end of the game is a legal strategy. The NF has stated that "Coaches must instruct their players regarding the proper techniques involved in strategic fouling." They recognize that strategy.
When they strategy is being employed, we have to recognize it. We have to recognize what's a foul and what's an intentional foul. When a team that is obviously attempting to foul strategically, without committing the acts that require an intentional foul call, then we have an obligation to call that foul.
To address, "If the offense is doing a great job of moving the ball to avoid a steal or foul..."I'm not advocating calling a foul in that situation, IF a foul has not been committed. However, when the foul occurs, it's got to be called or a player is going to end up in the front row because the defender is chasing hard.
I'm more addressing the situtation. 85% FT shooter A1 knows a foul is coming and is holding or dribbling the ball. I've seen inexperienced officials who won't call the foul on first contact. They wait until A1 gets whacked several times. That's stupid. If a defender goes up to a player and hits him on the arm, that's not incidental contact, no matter how hard the contact is or isn't. A player who is trying to foul is not committing incidental contact.
It's basic preventative officiating to call that first foul.
|