Average Numeber of Called Fouls
 

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.

There is no optimal number...

Call the obvious.

Call as many as needed..

This comment was from the losing coach, right?

Stop reading the newspaper, sports section in particular.

Not a Stock Holder of GHC?
 

Yeah, believe everything you read on the internet.

That's an awful broad paint brush.

I have called games with under 10 (total) to nearly 60. I've not tracked the numbers but my counts are usually in the 30-45 range (total per game).

Some coaches depend on the officials getting "tired" of calling fouls and expect to get away with playing rough as a strategy. I have seen such games. Just keep calling the fouls...the team should adjust, not the officials.

If a crew is seeing 50+ in a lot of games, however, they might want to review how they're calling things.

There is no way to say how many fouls can be called in a game. It varies largely on how aggressive teams are and skill set. A passive defense, well disciplined team probably won't have many fouls. An aggressive defense team will rack up a lot of fouls. And skill set disparity will tend to favor the better team in foul count. I had a game where I think we called 2 fouls all game on a team. Needless to say, the opposing coach wasnt happy but the winning team didnt have to do anything on defense because the losing teams offense was horrible.

Ive had games where combined fouls for the whole game wouldnt put a team in bonus and games where we've had close to 90(one team had 3 players left on the floor and the other had 5 left).

I'd have to guess the average number is in the high 30s, but that's not based on any actual data analysis. 50 is by no means outside the norm, and losing coaches have zero credibility on these types of complaints. If he has specific fouls he think shouldn't have been called, he'll provide video to the appropriate governing body. If he's just a sore loser, he'll complain to the media.

Appreciate the comments. I was mostly interested in gauging the general consensus on what the experienced guys would consider a high or low number. Per Cameron's post, if an official said I had a game last night with 60 fouls, I gather that the experienced guys would think that was on the high end. Similarly, 10 fouls would be a notable low number. Presumably then, a game with between 25 - 45 personal fouls would not be something an official would think much about as being any kind of game worth talking about.

Thanks, this was helpful.

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

I used to call a couple of hundred a game. You did want us to include the number of technicals, didn't you? ;)

[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.

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.

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

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...

Constipated Mathematicians Work It Out With A Pencil ...
 

We could certainly come up with a mean, but I would guess that it would be meaningless (no pun intended) due to a very high standard deviation, due to all the variables involved.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Man this is an awesome story!

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.

Freedom Of Movement
 

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.

So I guess most if not all had the same mindset. But of course we know that you knew better than everyone else, so it was all "our" fault that the things you believe were not called properly. So when I went to camps in Texas and Kentucky and Indiana it was me that was telling everyone at the camp what should or should not be called?

Again, maybe you were on an island of that thinking, because I do not see anyone else saying that these were fouls or clearly listed on the book, even with folks that worked much longer than me that commented in this thread. Because we know that you were the absolute authority on this and many issues of what was in the actual rules or the interpretations of those rules as well. Not that the NF ever put out videos (which my state actually started the consortium and used by the NF for training in the early 2000s) and I cannot recall in any of those videos suggesting that we call fouls that when 10-6-12 did not exist. Yes, my mindset was such the problem that they never suggested to do otherwise.


Peace

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

You have a really short memory. Just read a few post above. Several mentioned it or alluded to it.

And I never said it was uncommon or that you are many others were alone. I called it the way you did and as did everyone else.

You can certainly have your own opinion of how you think it should be called or how you were taught to call it, but you can't have your own facts. This sequence of events around this is all well documented across several years of rule books, interpretations, POEs, etc.

It was called that way for decades long before you and I became officials. Then, without a rule change, these fouls (illegal use of hands) were no longer being called under the misguided use of the generally reasonable philosophy of advantage/disadvantage. The NFHS/NCAA/etc. tried to bring it back to they way it was by issuing POEs (under illegal use of hands) only to be essentially ignored. As a last resort, to get everyone's attention, and to not leave any way for it to be ignored, they made them absolutes. Those are the facts. You can choose to deny them, but that doesn't make them any less true.

All I am saying is if that was the case where the rules were "very clear" then there would have been other examples to illustrate those positions. Remember the NF has made not only a Guidebook for years to start the season and as long as I can remember a Simplified and Illustrated book. Then when video was at their disposal, there were no references to these things you suggest were fouls. Now why is that? Maybe there was people that did not agree with your position. Now if I am wrong, show me some evidence or reference of such things in the current rules that said they wanted fouls for simply putting hands on a dribbler or even two hands must be called? You keep referencing a part of the rules that implies some illegal activity, but did not state that these situations were "automatic" fouls or that we did not consider incidental contact rules.

You can tell me all day what the rules said, but if I recall you are not a rules maker or even a person that published information about how these things were to be called. I know that certainly does not apply to me and when I attended camps (even attended John Adam's camp before he became the NCAA Supervisor) there were no standards for those things we call now to be fouls. There just wasn't that feeling. And the NCAA also had videos for some years to back up their positions, but only took on those directives when John Adams became the NCAA Supervisor on the Men's side. There were handchecking guidelines before, but they were not considered "automatics" for some time. And the rules in those cases were more vague and not as descriptive.

And finally you say it was called that way for decades, but the game was not played the same way for decades either. Actually when I was playing in the 80s, we did not even think to defend the way players did after I left high school. We never touched an opponent because we were encouraged to not move their feet and even did not defend the 3 the same way they do today. That kind of shot was not taken that often as it is today. So if it was called that way, not sure they played that way for decades. I have watched old videos on ESPN Classic or older videos and it is clear that the game is not played the same, let alone called the same. And many times small contact was called that was later seen as game interrupters, when players were not displaced.

Peace

And why was that? Because it was considered a foul. Imagine that. Hmmm.

You've just confirmed what I've been saying.

Lol!!!

So touching an opponent was a foul? Interesting. Seems like 4-27 said clearly otherwise.

And you still are not convincing anyone but yourself. And it appears again you were the only one in the country calling touching as a foul. Which is not even the current rule. ;)

Peace

Never said that simply touching was a foul...but it didn't take much.

Plus ca change. Plus c'est la meme chose.

15-50. 6 yesterday.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Either way, they had to put in a rule to make it clear for everyone that these are specific actions are fouls. If the rules were clear previously as state, they would have kept them the same or the rules would never change in language in order to get the appropriate application of what is wanted in the game. There is also a reason we have interpretations as well. Life is too short to worry about what once was. We are in a newer era and the rules and interpretations reflect that era.

Peace

The reason the automatics were written into the rulebook, is because we as a whole were not enforcing the hand checking, illegal use of hands rules already written into the rulebook. Advantage/disadvantage was being used as well as RSBQ. Each official is different and what I might think is and advantage or disadvantage, someone else might not. Therefore, the automatics came about. If you do A, B, C, or D. Its a foul.