Average Numeber of Called Fouls

[BigCat]

[QUOTE=JRutledge;994595]When I started officiating in the mid-90s. When I started our concern was to have flow and to call as little as possible when it was possible. Over the last 5 years or so, there has been more emphasis on calling more things and the rules changed to support those calls.

What I have learned is the players and coaches actually dictate how many fouls we call. They either adjust to us or we continue to keep calling fouls. I have worked games where we call 50 fouls and games where we hardly call 20. Players usually figure out what is being called and they are either stubborn or they stop doing what they are called for.

Peace[/QUOTE

Yes inthe early 90s we had assignors and others saying don't call hand checks if player going east and west. Hold whistle, game interrupters etc. Those people didn't know basketball. Offenses run east and west and then go north and south. I always say that philosophy got us the New York nicks...football team.
Much better game when you limit hand checks, let cutters cut.

If you call it early most teams will adjust. We have teams down here who will say "hands down." They know who's working and who will call handchecks. If it's getting called they will say hands up. Whistle is powerful tool. But as Jeff and others have said, blow the whistle. They will adjust or sit.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Yes inthe early 90s we had assignors and others saying don't call hand checks if player going east and west. Hold whistle, game interrupters etc. Those people didn't know basketball. Offenses run east and west and then go north and south. I always say that philosophy got us the New York nicks...football team.
Much better game when you limit hand checks, let cutters cut.

If you call it early most teams will adjust. We have teams down here who will say "hands down." They know who's working and who will call handchecks. If it's getting called they will say hands up. Whistle is powerful tool. But as Jeff and others have said, blow the whistle. They will adjust or sit.

I think simply 10-6-12 changed all of this. Rarely do you get many coaches complain anymore if you call those fouls. Interestingly they call it "a reach" but they do get on their players most of the time if they do these things.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think simply 10-6-12 changed all of this. Rarely do you get many coaches complain anymore if you call those fouls. Interestingly they call it "a reach" but they do get on their players most of the time if they do these things.

Peace

You know, The rule has been there forever. 10-7-2. Can't touch opponent with your hand unless playing ball and their hand is on ball. That covers darn near everything the new stuff talks about. They added the stuff to make it clear...that's a foul. Call it. 10-7-2 has been there forever. Coaches don't have a clue or care about the added rules for emphasis. It's the whistle that matters to them.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You know, The rule has been there forever. 10-7-2. Can't touch opponent with your hand unless playing ball and their hand is on ball. That covers darn near everything the new stuff talks about. They added the stuff to make it clear...that's a foul. Call it. 10-7-2 has been there forever. Coaches don't have a clue or care about the added rules for emphasis. It's the whistle that matters to them.

I have heard people say this, but there were no such rules with an interpretation that suggested that certain actions were "automatic" as they are now. It was not even implied that those situations were fouls as the rules have made clear now. It says you cannot do things, but does not say specifically what is in 10-6-12 that those are fouls when those things take place. And you know there were not officials or coaches that would have considered those fouls as they do now. And coaches care if those rules are constantly discussed or emphasized. Just like they do with thinks like coaching boxes or uniform issues.

Peace

[Kelvin green]

Let's break this down for the whining coach in the press.... 50 fouls is 12 team fouls in the first half, 13 in the second ( on average) If someone is trying to foul it increases their numbers..

If the coach is worried the numbers are high, the coach should tell his team team to stop fouling...

If both teams shoot bonus in both halves... That's 28 fouls.. If you shoot double bonus in both halves that's 40... I suspect the average is some place closed to the 40 range...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You know, The rule has been there forever. 10-7-2. Can't touch opponent with your hand unless playing ball and their hand is on ball. That covers darn near everything the new stuff talks about. They added the stuff to make it clear...that's a foul. Call it. 10-7-2 has been there forever. Coaches don't have a clue or care about the added rules for emphasis. It's the whistle that matters to them.

But until the recent change, this was always still subject to the incidental contact provisions (advantage/disadvantage).

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

But until the recent change, this was always still subject to the incidental contact provisions (advantage/disadvantage).

Yes, but here is what I'm trying to say. In the 70s and early 80s putting hand on player/dribbler and leaving it there, HC as we know today, was called a foul. Hands on cutters/chucking the cutter was called foul. At some point in the late 80s early 90s several someones declared that HC going to basket should be called but east and west should not be. Same set of rules but now they say No advantage etc. I didn't like it as a college referee because I had just finished coaching. My plays and offenses often times went east or west and then north to basket. Timing of cuts etc important. A hand on a dribbler east and west can screw up timing of offense.

Also, what bothered me about the east west no call philosophy was that as a player, having another player's hand on my hip did have an effect. I could and did "play through it"....and if you saw it, you couldn't really tell it had another effect but it did. Also each referees perception of advantage is different.

So then we get the Nicks of the 90s and ugly basketball in many places. Now the game is coming back around to the way it played in 70s and early 80s. Less hands/let cutters cut etc. The way it was played in the 70s etc. The advantage /disadvantage stuff was a change in philosophy IMO. The rules were in place in 70s and 80s for cleaner game and we're basically the same in 90s.

I think before coming to the automatics in the past few years they tried to change the philosophy through some POE s or something. It wasn't getting through to people so now the automatics in the rules to say "we do really mean we want less contact and more freedom of movement."

Sure parts are new but the game was played and called closer in the 70s and 80s without these new additions and could be called as we are doing now without them under the older sets for most part.

Anyway, hopefully you can figure out what I'm thinking and trying to say and say it better for me.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Yes, but here is what I'm trying to say. In the 70s and early 80s putting hand on player/dribbler and leaving it there, HC as we know today, was called a foul. Hands on cutters/chucking the cutter was called foul. At some point in the late 80s early 90s several someones declared that HC going to basket should be called but east and west should not be. Same set of rules but now they say No advantage etc. I didn't like it as a college referee because I had just finished coaching. My plays and offenses often times went east or west and then north to basket. Timing of cuts etc important. A hand on a dribbler east and west can screw up timing of offense.

Also, what bothered me about the east west no call philosophy was that as a player, having another player's hand on my hip did have an effect. I could and did "play through it"....and if you saw it, you couldn't really tell it had another effect but it did. Also each referees perception of advantage is different.

So then we get the Nicks of the 90s and ugly basketball in many places. Now the game is coming back around to the way it played in 70s and early 80s. Less hands/let cutters cut etc. The way it was played in the 70s etc. The advantage /disadvantage stuff was a change in philosophy IMO. The rules were in place in 70s and 80s for cleaner game and we're basically the same in 90s.

I think before coming to the automatics in the past few years they tried to change the philosophy through some POE s or something. It wasn't getting through to people so now the automatics in the rules to say "we do really mean we want less contact and more freedom of movement."

Sure parts are new but the game was played and called closer in the 70s and 80s without these new additions and could be called as we are doing now without them under the older sets for most part.

Anyway, hopefully you can figure out what I'm thinking and trying to say and say it better for me.

Well said.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You know, The rule has been there forever. 10-7-2. Can't touch opponent with your hand unless playing ball and their hand is on ball. That covers darn near everything the new stuff talks about. They added the stuff to make it clear...that's a foul. Call it. 10-7-2 has been there forever. Coaches don't have a clue or care about the added rules for emphasis. It's the whistle that matters to them.

10-6-12 took the judgment out of the equation, made it automatics.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by OKREF

10-6-12 took the judgment out of the equation, made it automatics.

Putting your hand on a player and leaving it on a dribbler was a foul and called in the 70s without these automatics. Somebody came up with the advantage/disadvantage philosophy or decided to overemphasize it. The rules didn't change, the philosophy did. They added more judgment to the call. And as I said, I can dribble with a hand on my hip and nobody in the gym may know it. I never over exaggerated and flopped around.

So I agree with you that the automatics were put in to take away the judgment. Before doing that they tried POE s or talking about it. Wasn't getting through. My point is though that the fouls we are calling today under the automatics were for the most part called in the 70s....without the automatics. Rules were already in place. The automatics are there to say we really mean it. I'm glad they are but you could call, for the most part ..not everything, the same game under the old rules or the current ones.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Putting your hand on a player and leaving it on a dribbler was a foul and called in the 70s without these automatics. Somebody came up with the advantage/disadvantage philosophy or decided to overemphasize it. The rules didn't change, the philosophy did. They added more judgment to the call. And as I said, I can dribble with a hand on my hip and nobody in the gym may know it. I never over exaggerated and flopped around.

The rules makers came up with it if it was not already there. 4-27 is pretty clear that if contact does not affect normal movements of both offensive and defensive players, then you do not have a foul. That is simply the rule, not just a philosophy that someone came out with. So what they did in the 70s is nice, but those are were not fouls as designated for things like screens or block-charge situations.

Originally Posted by BigCat

So I agree with you that the automatics were put in to take away the judgment. Before doing that they tried POE s or talking about it. Wasn't getting through. My point is though that the fouls we are calling today under the automatics were for the most part called in the 70s....without the automatics. Rules were already in place. The automatics are there to say we really mean it. I'm glad they are but you could call, for the most part ..not everything, the same game under the old rules or the current ones.

OK, but most of us did not work in the 70s. And to be honest as well, the NBA brought on these philosophies in the rules, not what was done before. So if the rules were already in place, then why was the game not interpreted that way? I have been working since the 90s and no one ever told me that those were "automatics" without a level of advantage/disadvantage involved.

It sounds to me like that was a philosophy you are referencing, not rules that supported those things. Because that rule you referenced was very ambiguous.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The rules makers came up with it if it was not already there. 4-27 is pretty clear that if contact does not affect normal movements of both offensive and defensive players, then you do not have a foul. That is simply the rule, not just a philosophy that someone came out with. So what they did in the 70s is nice, but those are were not fouls as designated for things like screens or block-charge situations.



OK, but most of us did not work in the 70s. And to be honest as well, the NBA brought on these philosophies in the rules, not what was done before. So if the rules were already in place, then why was the game not interpreted that way? I have been working since the 90s and no one ever told me that those were "automatics" without a level of advantage/disadvantage involved.

It sounds to me like that was a philosophy you are referencing, not rules that supported those things. Because that rule you referenced was very ambiguous.

Peace

So you started in the 90s. That is when advantage disadvantage started being emphasized. The rules then were the same as they were in the 70s and 80s. In the 90s they wanted us to hold our whistle. In the 70 and 80s the whistle was blown. The rules were same. That has been my point the entire time. The rules have always been in place, without automatics, to call the game the same way we are now. It was done in the 70s and early 80s. The rules were in place. Philosophy changed so we have 90s. but rules stayed same.

Disaster of the 90s results and philosophy changes back to the 70s philosophy now. They tried just telling us to call fouls, freedom of movement etc through POEs. Wasn't getting through. They came out with the automatics because they found out simply saying go back to how game was called in 70s wasn't working.

[Raymond]

I have no idea. I did a D3 game where the home team shot 68 free throws. I reviewed the video with the mindset of finding the fouls we could have passed on. Turns out we could have called MORE fouls on visitors and probably called a couple of fouls on the home team that were incorrect.

I've also done college games where each team shot fewer than 15 free throws.