Average Numeber of Called Fouls

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by BigT

Man this is an awesome story!

Agreed and now its time to go blow my whistle....

[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.