|
New ref here, only doing youth BB for now, HS later. I've been trolling around this board for a couple of weeks and I'm a little confused (actually a lot confused depending on the rule) about some things, including advantage/disadvantage. Specifically relating to this thread, I'm wondering why an official would choose to ignore a shooting foul if the basket was made and yet call the same foul if the basket was not made.
As I understand some of the officials that have posted, they wouldn't call the foul because it didn't place the offended player at a disadvantage and/or didn't effect the outcome of the shot; and that the determination as to disadvantage or effect is solely based upon whether or not the ball ultimately went into the basket.
I don't understand this, so I'm hoping for further explanation. Is the philosophy of being at a “disadvantage” that a player is not at a disadvantage as long as the outcome of the play/shot is what that player intended to happen (such as a basket)? It doesn’t make sense that just because the player ultimately made the basked that he wasn’t necessarily put in a disadvantageous situation as the result of the foul.
It seems to me that just because the basket was made, it doesn't mean that the shooter was not placed at a disadvantage, it could just mean that the player overcame the disadvantage and made the basket and/or the disadvantage wasn’t so severe that it effected the ultimate outcome of the shot. Is an official required to judge how much of a disadvantage the foul caused and only call the foul if it crosses a certain threshold or resulted in an unintended outcome?
If the basis for calling a foul is whether or not the basket was made, a foul with a basket = no disadvantage and conversely, a foul without a basket = disadvantage. In a situation when there is a foul and then a missed shot how would the official determine whether or not the foul caused a disadvantage .. it may have been a shot that wouldn’t have gone in anyway, therefore the foul did not call a disadvantage and it is not called.
From a newbie perspective it doesn’t make sense to not call a foul simply/only because the offended player made the basket, when the same foul would have been called if the basket was not successful.
So, this is really my ultimate question. Should the basis upon which the official makes the decision to call (or not call) the foul be:
1. Whether of not the shooter was placed at a perceived disadvantage because of the foul; or
2. Whether or not the shooter achieved his intended goal (in this case a basket) in spite of the foul, whether or not the foul put the player at a disadvantage?
….. or should the foul be called because it was a violation of the rules and it really isn’t possible to truly determine whether or not it caused a disadvantage.
|