Average Numeber of Called Fouls

[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.

[justacoach]

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.

[grunewar]

Yeah, believe everything you read on the internet.

Originally Posted by justacoach

Stop reading the newspaper, sports section in particular.

That's an awful broad paint brush.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[SNIPERBBB]

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).

[Adam]

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'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.

[RefBob]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Mark Padgett]

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

[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...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RefBob

... the average number of personal fouls you have seen called in games ...

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.