Average Numeber of Called Fouls

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No matter how much you want to deny it, the rules were there and these things have been fouls under the rules for longer than any of us have been alive. Illegal use of Hands covered it perfectly.

The judgement/advantage/disadvantage philosophy had actually morphed, for many officials, from what it was truly about. Too many officials were not calling based on the actual advantage gained but only blatantly obvious advantage gained. Actual advantage/disadvantage was always there, otherwise the defenders wouldn't have been doing it, but it wouldn't get called.

It wasn't really about judgement/advantage/disadvantage anymore but about calling as little as you could get a way with...particularly if both teams are doing the same thing. I heard that philosophy preached on more than one occasion.

As we know, that mentality was killing the game. Fortunately, the right people got in power and stopped the further devolution. They have, to some degree, brought the game back to what it once was.

If it was clear, then why did they have to create a rules or language to say certain actions were illegal?

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But you keep saying that the rules were there. Obviously not. There is no language in any part of the rule that states what you see in 10-1-4 in college or 10-6-12 in high school. Sorry, I do not see any rules other than saying that certain things could be illegal. But I do not see two hands is a foul no matter what on the ball handler in the rule you referenced. You are not the only official that has worked before me and I did not see anyone suggesting that those were fouls and had to be called every time as they have been explicitly put in the rules.

Peace

Jeff, you are absolutely correct. Until recently the rules did not say TWO hands is a foul. For the last 45 years they've only said touching another player with one hand is a foul unless it's on the ball. We were never told that two hands was illegal.

True story here. My best friend growing up was named Jeff. He'd come to my house and we'd play basketball in driveway. I was Akeem and he was Clyde. (It was a 9 foot rim). We finished one night And went inside and found the oreos. Started in on them with no dinner. My mom never minced words: "not one more until dinner." (With a few expletives) She screamed it at us. She walked out of kitchen. My best friend Jeff pulled out the Oreos, looked at me and smiled . "She said we couldn't have one more." We ate the other 2 rows. How do you think it went over when we said you said we couldn't have one more?

If one isn't allowed 2 surely isn't and I've got the bruises to prove it.

You responded to Camron and asked why did they have to create a rule...? Because some people are hard headed and think if there told not to eat one more Oreo it's ok to eat 2.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If it was clear, then why did they have to create a rules or language to say certain actions were illegal?

Peace

Because too many people were being obstinate about it....wanting to do it their own way and improperly using the incorrect excuse of advantage/disadvantage to not call it (consider me guilty too because I was not interested in being different, but that doesn't mean I agreed with it). They tried it with POE's for a while with little effect. Realizing that some people would continue to refuse to call it as defined and requested without it being spelled out for them in most simple terms, they spelled it out so that even the most stubborn could no longer say it wasn't a foul.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Jeff, you are absolutely correct. Until recently the rules did not say TWO hands is a foul. For the last 45 years they've only said touching another player with one hand is a foul unless it's on the ball. We were never told that two hands was illegal.



True story here. My best friend growing up was named Jeff. He'd come to my house and we'd play basketball in driveway. I was Akeem and he was Clyde. (It was a 9 foot rim). We finished one night And went inside and found the oreos. Started in on them with no dinner. My mom never minced words: "not one more until dinner." (With a few expletives) She screamed it at us. She walked out of kitchen. My best friend Jeff pulled out the Oreos, looked at me and smiled . "She said we couldn't have one more." We ate the other 2 rows. How do you think it went over when we said you said we couldn't have one more?



If one isn't allowed 2 surely isn't and I've got the bruises to prove it.



You responded to Camron and asked why did they have to create a rule...? Because some people are hard headed and think if there told not to eat one more Oreo it's ok to eat 2.

Merely touching with one hand was never a foul in any place I've lived the last 30 years.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Because too many people were being obstinate about it....wanting to do it their own way and improperly using the incorrect excuse of advantage/disadvantage to not call it (consider me guilty too because I was not interested in being different, but that doesn't mean I agreed with it). They tried it with POE's for a while with little effect. Realizing that some people would continue to refuse to call it as defined and requested without it being spelled out for them in most simple terms, they spelled it out so that even the most stubborn could no longer say it wasn't a foul.

Well if that was the standard, they did not seem to tell anybody that was the standard. Again, 4-27 says very clearly what is not a foul and if the contact stated does not affect normal offensive or defensive movement, then the actual rules says that is not a foul. So again if it was clear as you say, then it would have been used to remind people that these actions were "automatic" fouls. But the problem is that was never the case in my career. Of course there were POEs about things that they wanted us to call, but not about this specific issue or stating specifics that make these actions a foul.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well if that was the standard, they did not seem to tell anybody that was the standard. Again, 4-27 says very clearly what is not a foul and if the contact stated does not affect normal offensive or defensive movement, then the actual rules says that is not a foul. So again if it was clear as you say, then it would have been used to remind people that these actions were "automatic" fouls. But the problem is that was never the case in my career. Of course there were POEs about things that they wanted us to call, but not about this specific issue or stating specifics that make these actions a foul.

Peace

The fact that you keep posting this confirms why they had to reword them as automatic. You were not getting it even though it was being said...and you're still not getting it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The fact that you keep posting this confirms why they had to reword them as automatic. You were not getting it even though it was being said...and you're still not getting it.

I just do not agree with you. I have been around a lot of officials that started way before me and they did not advocate what you are advocating.

I get that you feel the rules are what you say they were, but it does not appear a lot of people agreed. So if they did not agree or understand that interpretation as you stated, then that is a problem. That is why IMO they not only had an editorial change to the overall rule in 10-6, but they added specifics to what is to be a foul that was never there previously.

And I really do not understand why you are even arguing this point. We are in a different time now.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just do not agree with you. I have been around a lot of officials that started way before me and they did not advocate what you are advocating.

I get that you feel the rules are what you say they were, but it does not appear a lot of people agreed. So if they did not agree or understand that interpretation as you stated, then that is a problem. That is why IMO they not only had an editorial change to the overall rule in 10-6, but they added specifics to what is to be a foul that was never there previously.

And I really do not understand why you are even arguing this point. We are in a different time now.

Peace

Just about every level has said they wanted to get officials to return to calling it the way it was (based on the rules that have been there all along) but POEs were not getting people to call it accordingly...so they took another angle to say the same thing. How hard is that to understand?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

Merely touching with one hand was never a foul in any place I've lived the last 30 years.

Let me try it this way to explain what i mean.

Take away the automatics and the new contact stuff in 10-7-12. Please assume it is not there. If I was your assignor (i appreciate people like you willing to do it because i never would) and i said "Rich, we are going to change the way we play in this league. If a player puts two hands on a player or puts one hand on a player and leaves it there i want you to call a foul."

There is and has been in place forever a rule that could be used to support making those calls/philosophy.. IF that's how you wanted it called. 10-7-2. You cant put hand on player unless hand contact ball etc. That rule covers it. If you cant put one, you cant put two. We didnt really need a new rule to call two hands on a player a foul. We had to change the philosophy..the thinking.

They tried just saying "call it" to referees and "dont do it" to players and coaches without the automatics but it still wasnt getting through. So they decided to let everyone know in no uncertain terms by adding a complete article and spelling each thing out.

As evidence that the rules were already in place to call it the way we are now, i cited play in the 70s and early 80s. It was played and called cleaner then. the automatics didn't meet to be spelled out word for word. There were rules already in place. As you said, there started being more and more athleticism and the thinking was get out of their way and let them play. Advantage/disadvantage is latched on to. Game got so physical it was problem. People started realizing to actually see all the athleticism and let the great athletes...be great athletes, the whistle needed to be blown more.

This is what i believe and what i was trying to say. The rules to call a clean game have been in place for a long time, it was the thinking/philosophy that needed to change. People werent changing, referees, players etc by simply telling them what they wanted so they decided to scream it at them by making an entirely separate article in the rules. The automatics. Its just what i think.

[SD Referee]

Originally Posted by RefBob

I would like some idea from those of you that have been officiating for awhile of the average number of personal fouls you have seen called in games (middle - high school, with eight minute stop clock quarters) over the course of your careers. I know that the number of fouls called in any particular game is ideally based on the number of fouls committed in that game and that this number can vary widely. But I would imagine that those of you that have been doing this for years have some sense of the "average." I am new at all of this, but even I would think that 100 in a game is very, very high and 1 is very, very low. But what is the average range? Also does this average vary by grade level and boys vs. girls?

One of our three person crews was criticized by a losing coach in the local newspaper for calling 50 personal fouls with 77 free throws in a girls varsity game. Presumably this is higher than the losing coach usually sees. (The winning team had 44 free throw attempts and the losing team 33. So it wasn't hugely out of balance.)

Thanks.

Thanks.

I'm not surprised a losing coach would say something this dumb.

I'm not surprised there were that many fouls in a girls game.

Don't worry about it. Call what you see and call the fouls you see. If the players want to continue fouling, continue calling the fouls. Period.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Let me try it this way to explain what i mean.

Take away the automatics and the new contact stuff in 10-7-12. Please assume it is not there. If I was your assignor (i appreciate people like you willing to do it because i never would) and i said "Rich, we are going to change the way we play in this league. If a player puts two hands on a player or puts one hand on a player and leaves it there i want you to call a foul."

There is and has been in place forever a rule that could be used to support making those calls/philosophy.. IF that's how you wanted it called. 10-7-2. You cant put hand on player unless hand contact ball etc. That rule covers it. If you cant put one, you cant put two. We didnt really need a new rule to call two hands on a player a foul. We had to change the philosophy..the thinking.

They tried just saying "call it" to referees and "dont do it" to players and coaches without the automatics but it still wasnt getting through. So they decided to let everyone know in no uncertain terms by adding a complete article and spelling each thing out.

As evidence that the rules were already in place to call it the way we are now, i cited play in the 70s and early 80s. It was played and called cleaner then. the automatics didn't meet to be spelled out word for word. There were rules already in place. As you said, there started being more and more athleticism and the thinking was get out of their way and let them play. Advantage/disadvantage is latched on to. Game got so physical it was problem. People started realizing to actually see all the athleticism and let the great athletes...be great athletes, the whistle needed to be blown more.

This is what i believe and what i was trying to say. The rules to call a clean game have been in place for a long time, it was the thinking/philosophy that needed to change. People werent changing, referees, players etc by simply telling them what they wanted so they decided to scream it at them by making an entirely separate article in the rules. The automatics. Its just what i think.

When I started in the 80s, the defenses didn't play the way they do now.

I'm not sure if it's because of the officiating, though. Too many mental gymnastics for me -- I don't remember entire seasons from back then.

It's hard to say. I'm not unhappy with where this has gone, though. I called 3 handchecks against the same team in about 5 minutes this past week. 5 years ago that coach would've been all over me. Now he's all over the players.

Some coaches haven't gotten the memo -- those are not the best coaches in the area, though, and never will be.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Jeff, you are absolutely correct. Until recently the rules did not say TWO hands is a foul. For the last 45 years they've only said touching another player with one hand is a foul unless it's on the ball. We were never told that two hands was illegal.

True story here. My best friend growing up was named Jeff. He'd come to my house and we'd play basketball in driveway. I was Akeem and he was Clyde. (It was a 9 foot rim). We finished one night And went inside and found the oreos. Started in on them with no dinner. My mom never minced words: "not one more until dinner." (With a few expletives) She screamed it at us. She walked out of kitchen. My best friend Jeff pulled out the Oreos, looked at me and smiled . "She said we couldn't have one more." We ate the other 2 rows. How do you think it went over when we said you said we couldn't have one more?

If one isn't allowed 2 surely isn't and I've got the bruises to prove it.

You responded to Camron and asked why did they have to create a rule...? Because some people are hard headed and think if there told not to eat one more Oreo it's ok to eat 2.

Man this is an awesome story!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just about every level has said they wanted to get officials to return to calling it the way it was (based on the rules that have been there all along) but POEs were not getting people to call it accordingly...so they took another angle to say the same thing. How hard is that to understand?

I never heard any league say, "Return to what we used to do." These rules were put in place came actually from a directive from the NBA and the NCAA took on the "automatics" as a way to describe fouls. If they wanted people to just call the game the way the game was, then they would not have to change or add any rules right? And the rules that they have asked to be called are also only dealing with the ball handler, not any other position or situation on the floor. Because the NBA allowed handchecking back in the 80s and changed the rules to eliminate that action. Heck there was not even a signal for handchecking until the early 2000s I believe (at least since I have been officiating for sure). So I guess I am missing this directive to go back to what we used to never do.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I never heard any league say, "Return to what we used to do." These rules were put in place came actually from a directive from the NBA and the NCAA took on the "automatics" as a way to describe fouls. If they wanted people to just call the game the way the game was, then they would not have to change or add any rules right? And the rules that they have asked to be called are also only dealing with the ball handler, not any other position or situation on the floor. Because the NBA allowed handchecking back in the 80s and changed the rules to eliminate that action. Heck there was not even a signal for handchecking until the early 2000s I believe (at least since I have been officiating for sure). So I guess I am missing this directive to go back to what we used to never do.

Peace

You and officials with the same mindset are the very reason they had to go to absolutes after the POEs didn't work....you refuse to accept that it was always a foul. Every time you post this argument you just confirm you were part of the problem.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

When I started in the 80s, the defenses didn't play the way they do now.

Back when I started officiating thirty-six years ago, the big push was on advantage/disadvantage, that hasn't stopped completely, but now we also talk about freedom of movement.