Made Shot, No Foul. Missed Shot, Foul.
 

I have officiated basketball for two years now. As I continue to try and improve, I have come across a question I can't seem to find an answer to in the rule book. Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm hoping someone can shed some light.

I went to several camps this summer and it seems that as the level of basketball increases, the concepts behind what constitutes a foul slightly change. Whereas Refereeing 101 says "if you see illegal contact, its a foul," Refeering 201 says something like "if you see contact, depending on the severity of the contact and the outcome of the play, it may or may not be a foul."

In soccer for instance.....its part of the rules. If a player is fouled but maintains an advantage over the defender, you yell "advantage" and allow play to continue. Basketball, to a lesser degree, seems to follow a similar ideology in certain situations.

So my question is this: Does anyone know anywhere in the rule book this is supported?

What is the justification the next time a coach asks "Wasn't that a foul?"......."It would have been had he missed the basket?" Or conversely a coach asking "Why was that call so late?" Is the response "I wanted to see if the basket was made?"

Disclaimer: I agree with this methodology. I think it allows for the pace of the game to be unhindered when possible. Also, the contact i'm talking about here walks the line of marginal and illegal. Its not black, its not white. Its gray.

You won't.

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

Its there in black and white...
 

While it is not written using the exact language like it is in soccer, in basketball we do use a "play on" philosophy if the contact has little affect on the play. However, in basketball we usually refer to this as "advantage/disadvantage" in addition to applying the principles of RSBQ. If the contact does not create an advantage for one player and/or place the other at a disadvantage and it does not affect RSBQ or meet one of the criteria for an automatic whistle then we can let it pass if in our judgment the contact was "marginal" or "incidental".

This is supported several places in Rule 4 which uses language such as "hinders an opponent from normal offensive and defensive movements", specifically states that "not all contact is a foul", and clearly defines the differences between legal, illegal and incidental contact. Rule 10-6 also details illegal contact very clearly. Again, unless the contact is "big" or specifically defined by rule as an "automatic" foul then it simply comes down to judgment as to whether or not these conditions are met.

When a coach asks for an explanation as to why a foul was or was not called I try to use short and simple responses whenever possible -- "contact was marginal coach" or "in my judgment it was incidental" or on rare occasions "coach, not all contact is a foul" or "I had a different angle, coach" -- acknowledging the coach's viewpoint while standing behind my calls (and passes).

I also try have a very patient whistle and see the play through so the whistle isn't late, its consistent. In general, slowing down will help you get more calls correct, be more consistent in the calls you do make, and make you appear more confident when you make them. This will also cut down on some of the challenges from the coach.

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! :D

Ok, I could buy that. Thinking of it in terms of using the outcome of the play to help lend evidence as to whether or not the offensive player was hindered due to the contact of the defensive player helps my thought process.

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.

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.


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.

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.

And One ...
 

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.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.MeeX...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

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

Even this may not be accurate in many cases. Example: A couple of seasons ago in one of my GV games A1 attempts a try and B1 taps A1's elbow, causing the ball to fall about five feet short of the basket. It wasn't severe but B1 created contact and gained an advantage not intended by rule. I called the foul as soon as I realized the try was going to miss everything. When the coach asked why I called it a bit late - he knew what happened but he was just doing his due diligence - I said, "Coach, it's amazing what a little tap on the elbow can do to a shot."

As others have said, the entire play needs to be judged.

If that's really what they said, you need to find new camps.

My guess, however, is that they really said:

Whereas Refereeing 101 says "if you see <s>illegal</s> contact, its a foul," Refeering 201 says something like "if you see contact, depending on the severity of the contact and the effect on the player <s>outcome of the play</s>, it may or may not be illegal contact and thus a foul."

Basketball use of advantage-disadvantage is closer to soccer's concept of trifling than it is the soccer concept of advantage.

In soccer, a trifling foul is one that does not have a significant impact and can be fairly ignored. In basketball, just as in soccer, the amount of contact that can fairly be ignored as not having a significant impact is dependent on the level of play.

In soccer, advantage is not about whether the attacker maintained an advantage, but whether the team of the victim of the foul is better off continuing to play than having the foul punished.