Controversial call at end of OHSAA State Final

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

To the earlier reply about "explaining" to a coach about take-foul scenarios: This is not the time for a rules clinic. It's ok to explain a ruling after the fact but not before. It's also imperative when you know a team MAY be fouling to get the FIRST foul. Some coaches will be asses no matter the outcome.

I had a game where the coach pretty much told me what they were about to do. At the first sign of contact I blew my whistle which came just a fraction of a second before a second defender stole the ball (which if the coach didn't tell me what he was doing and the primary defender had been .5 seconds later it would have been a no call and steal). The coach "questioned" the call 30 feet away, and I responded with a T (not like he was a saint all game either). If he didn't tell me what he did I may not have T'd him for his behavior, but the fact that he did and then acted that way is the behavior that, I think, as officials we don't do a good enough job of addressing.

This is exactly why such situations shouldn't be handled in the described manner.
Officials shouldn't alter what a foul is near the end of the game. Call the contact the same as you did earlier in the contest. There is a proper way to foul for a strategic purpose. If the team cannot do that, then officials shouldn't be rewarding their poor execution. More importantly to this story, slight contact which would not have been deemed a foul previously in the game should not be whistled at this point. To do so is unfair. The camp advice of "call the first foul" does not equate to whistle as soon as someone breathes on the opponent. See an actual foul before calling anything.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... slight contact which would not have been deemed a foul previously in the game should not be whistled at this point. To do so is unfair.

Eh, if a team is clearly trying to foul and is able to make that "slight contact," I'm getting that immediately. Otherwise, things can escalate pretty quickly when defenders take the "Ok, then I guess I need to step up the contact" tack.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ODog

Eh, if a team is clearly trying to foul and is able to make that "slight contact," I'm getting that immediately. Otherwise, things can escalate pretty quickly when defenders take the "Ok, then I guess I need to step up the contact" tack.

The slippery slope argument and fear-mongering!

Again, there is a proper way to foul. If a team cannot execute that, then officials shouldn't be helping them. That's favoritism of the team which is behind in the contest.

Rather than escalating to a horrible mess, it is much more logical to believe that a middle ground will occur in which the defensive player actually fouls the opponent instead of just causes slight contact. That is when the official should properly make the call.

Officials should call actual fouls near the end of games and not live in fear of what might happen.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The slippery slope argument and fear-mongering!

Again, there is a proper way to foul. If a team cannot execute that, then officials shouldn't be helping them. That's favoritism of the team which is behind in the contest.

Rather than escalating to a horrible mess, it is much more logical to believe that a middle ground will occur in which the defensive player actually fouls the opponent instead of just causes slight contact. That is when the official should properly make the call.

Officials should call actual fouls near the end of games and not live in fear of what might happen.

Two hands on a ball handler is an "automatic", right? Just tag the ball handler with two hands, always gets the whistle here, no matter how slight the contact. No need to "go for the ball".

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Two hands on a ball handler is an "automatic", right? Just tag the ball handler with two hands, always gets the whistle here, no matter how slight the contact. No need to "go for the ball".

The defense wanted to foul 55. He was not the ball handler. Saying go for the ball is another way to say make sure player has the ball. As i said, i would tell a kid who talks to me as Arem mentioned, "dont just go grabbing 55 or shoving him if he doesn't have ball." If they do it after that i will call it intentional. In 7th grade the kids should know the rules and certainly a coach should.

In a 5th grade game i might do something different. Ultimately, its jr high basketball. If they have to learn you cant go grab somebody by me calling intentional foul then it is what it is. Better they learn now than later....

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The defense wanted to foul 55. He was not the ball handler. Saying go for the ball is another way to say make sure player has the ball. As i said, i would tell a kid who talks to me as Arem mentioned, "dont just go grabbing 55 or shoving him if he doesn't have ball." If they do it after that i will call it intentional. In 7th grade the kids should know the rules and certainly a coach should.

In a 5th grade game i might do something different. Ultimately, its jr high basketball. If they have to learn you cant go grab somebody by me calling intentional foul then it is what it is. Better they learn now than later....

I was just responding to Nevada's post about the proper way to foul. When the refs know what you're doing, tagging the ballhandler with two hands is all you need to do.