Average Numeber of Called Fouls

[SE Minnestoa Re]

A number of years ago we were working an early season boys game. The players apparently had forgotten it was no longer football season. We called a ton of fouls.

After one of these fouls, the kid who the foul was called on complained to the coach that he didn't do anything. The coach responded "I am guessing the official won't call a foul if you would get your hands off the other player".

My favorite coach.

[ballgame99]

If you told me there were 60 fouls called in a game, I would think 'that's a lot of fouls' but I certainly wouldn't think 'those officials called too many fouls', there is a big difference.

[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).

[RefBob]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

If you told me there were 60 fouls called in a game, I would think 'that's a lot of fouls' but I certainly wouldn't think 'those officials called too many fouls', there is a big difference.

Agree 100%, and this is just what I was looking for. Wanted some measure of what is "a lot of fouls in a game." Very, very different from too many fouls called in a game.

[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

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

I started in the 1980s and advantage/disadvantage was the nature of the game then, too. Then again, the players were nowhere near as aggressive defensively nor were many of them as athletic as today, either.

The game wasn't a disaster before the automatics, either. There were too many officials who simply wouldn't call fouls. Now there are officials that simply ignore the automatics.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

I started in the 1980s and advantage/disadvantage was the nature of the game then, too. Then again, the players were nowhere near as aggressive defensively nor were many of them as athletic as today, either.

The game wasn't a disaster before the automatics, either. There were too many officials who simply wouldn't call fouls. Now there are officials that simply ignore the automatics.

Maybe in your area but the whistle was blown here. Also, depends on your definition of disaster. Hold the whistle lead to football games and the nicks. Watching that, to me was a disaster. That's just an opinion of mine. My opinion on the automatics is also that they are screaming at us to blow the whistle.

[Camron Rust]

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

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.