Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN
Acting like the circumstances are the same doesn't make them that way -- in the first quarter, the defense isn't trying to stop the clock with a foul and the contact will be isolated to the initial contact, not on escalating amounts until the foul is called (and someone is laying on the floor).
|
Of course the game circumstances are different, but the rules aren't. I still have yet to have anyone show me in the rule or case book where the standard for calling a foul is different at the end of the game than it is in the beginning.
I will agree if the offense stands there and is willing to "take" a foul, then yes, we should call the foul when the defense comes up and puts their hands on the offense. But if the offense is doing their job and keeping away from the defense, why should we penalize them by stopping the clock for something that is not a foul at any other time in the game? Is the answer is simply that we want to avoid escalating amounts of contact until someone's on the floor? Then my response is we missed calling a foul on one of those "escalating amounts of contact". If none of those amounts of contact would've warranted a foul call in the beginning of the game, and the player gets frustrated and puts the offense on the floor, then we need to call the intentional or flagrant. That's a coaching issue - if the players have not been taught to foul "properly" at the end of the game, it's not our job to penalize the offense and stop the clock because we're afraid the defense might get frustrated and put someone on the floor.
It's not our job keep players from being frustrated. Example: A1 gets the ball in the low post, makes his move, and B1 blocks the shot. You see a little bit of body contact, but not enough to affect the shot, and therefore no foul. Now, this same thing happens two more times down the court. Finally, A1 shows his frustration by lowering his shoulder into B1 and knocking him to the floor. So, what would your response be if I told you that you should've called a foul on one of the earlier blocks so A1 doesn't get frustrated and put B1 to the floor in that instance? Of course, if there was no foul initially, it's not our job to call something that isn't there simply to prevent frustration later.
Maybe, in realty, what we would both call in these situations is not that far apart. But what I'm reacting to is the comment that we should call a foul on "any amount of contact" in this situation. I have seen fouls called on a touch: "Tag, you're fouled." To me that's both lazy coaching and lazy officiating; the coach hasn't taught the players how to foul the proper way, and the official is putting aside their judgement to make an easy call. Yes, we should be aware of the time and situation - we should know which team is behind, that they will probably want to foul to stop the clock. We should be more aware of how they will try to do that, and work to be in position to get the contact that really is a foul. We should not take the easy way out and call a foul on simply any contact.