Made Shot, No Foul. Missed Shot, Foul.

[SNIPERBBB]

You won't.

[JRutledge]

I disagree with what you say about "Officiating 201." Illegal contact is judge by how it affects the movement or play. That is clearly stated in the rulebook. Rule 4-27 takes care of all of this. It is just the problem is more people do not read it or try to understand it. It is a rule I reference to coaches all the time. There is no such wording in the rulebook that says, "A foul is a foul" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean anyway.

Peace

[Freddy]

An important principle to maintain might go something like this: there's a measure of flexibility possible with the enforcement of all rules, but understanding when, when not, and how much to exercise that flexibility mandates a prior understanding of what the applicable rules actually state.

One approach to nurture a book-based understanding is to come to understand Rule 10-6-1 through 11, and then compare everything there with Rule 4-27-1 through 3. Throw in an awareness of 4-7 and 4-24, and that'll give anyone a good start. Those references serve then as a foundation for applying all the other concepts popularly mentioned in any mature discussion of the issue you've expressed. And there are other concepts that go into it (marginal vs. significant, game situation, crew consistency, etc.) which I'm sure our other esteemed forum contributors will suggest.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with what you say about "Officiating 201." Illegal contact is judge by how it affects the movement or play. That is clearly stated in the rulebook. Rule 4-27 takes care of all of this. It is just the problem is more people do not read it or try to understand it. It is a rule I reference to coaches all the time. There is no such wording in the rulebook that says, "A foul is a foul" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean anyway.

I agree illegal contact is clearly stated in the rule book. But I think we all understand what happens on the court is not always so clear (officiating would be a heck of a lot easier then, wouldn't it? ) The question I'm asking is referring to the idea that on marginal/illegal plays, you can lean one way or the other depending on the outcome of that play. Patient whistle. See the whole play. etc.

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

You won't.

I was starting to think not!

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Geof

I agree illegal contact is clearly stated in the rule book. But I think we all understand what happens on the court is not always so clear (officiating would be a heck of a lot easier then, wouldn't it? ) The question I'm asking is referring to the idea that on marginal/illegal plays, you can lean one way or the other depending on the outcome of that play. Patient whistle. See the whole play. etc.

The answer is YES! If a player is bumped on his way to the basket but takes another step before smoothly making a lay up then how was he placed at a disadvantage? If the answer is "he wasn't" then it may be a good no call. If he were to miss that lay up seeing the play through after contact allows you to decide if the contact caused the player to miss that shot and if it did then it would be a good "late" whistle. As stated before, it all boils down to judgment of advantage/disadvantage and RSBQ.

Originally Posted by Geof

I was starting to think not!

Read and reread Rule 4 and Rule 10. I have been officiating or coaching basketball for more than 20 years and I still read these section almost every night during the season and at least once per month in the off season. I almost always gain better insight into how I am interpreting the rules or gain more confidence in how I apply them.

[just another ref]

Judging whether the contact created an advantage is everything. Whether or not the shot goes in is not a part of the equation, in my opinion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Judging whether the contact created an advantage is everything. Whether or not the shot goes in is not a part of the equation, in my opinion.

Agree.

We had a veteran official speak at one of our local board meetings a few years ago. According to him, there should never be "and one" situations, i.e., if the ball goes in, there shouldn't have been a foul called. That's not my philosophy.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree.

We had a veteran official speak at one of our local board meetings a few years ago. According to him, there should never be "and one" situations, i.e., if the ball goes in, there shouldn't have been a foul called. That's not my philosophy.

Like you, I strongly disagree with that philosophy. Being able to still make the shot is not normally a factor in whether there was a foul. Making the attempt more difficult can be the advantage gained, not the prevention of the shot going in. Sometimes, it just goes in out of luck.

[CountTheBasket]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Judging whether the contact created an advantage is everything. Whether or not the shot goes in is not a part of the equation, in my opinion.

I agree with this totally, I do however believe that we can look at the shot the offensive player got off for clues as to whether contact put them at a disadvantage. An offensive player who is bumped and then continues with a clean step and layup which just happens to miss doesn't automatically trigger a foul for me.

Along the same lines, I have come in with a late whistle on a jump shot when I don't "think" the player got hit but there was a possibility and then the shot ends up 5 feet short. (This only happened when I was out of position just this one time...)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Geof

I agree illegal contact is clearly stated in the rule book. But I think we all understand what happens on the court is not always so clear (officiating would be a heck of a lot easier then, wouldn't it? ) The question I'm asking is referring to the idea that on marginal/illegal plays, you can lean one way or the other depending on the outcome of that play. Patient whistle. See the whole play. etc.



I was starting to think not!

If the contact does not affect normal movement (offensive or defensive) then it is not a foul. Now we use terms like marginal contact to illustrate maybe a way to not call a foul if necessary. But I believe marginal contact can be a foul if done in the right context like rules involving 10-6. The problem is all contact is judgment (even the hand-checking rules) regardless of what we call it anyway.

Peace