Players can recover from an early bad call. They can't recover from a bad fifth foul or bad call in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

There is an obvious problem here that nobody has mentioned. (have they?)
If you take the position that you will be aware of a player with four fouls and take care not to foul this player out on a "marginal call" then that will lead you to lean in the other direction and allow this player to get away with something which would have been a foul earlier in the game, or, even worse, to pass on a foul on this player that might still be a foul on another player.

I find both of these possibilities to be as unacceptable as anything else in this thread.

The fact that you do not call a "marginal" foul means that it is not likely a foul. Why would I want to call something that is not really there? My goal is to call the obvious, not call something that is marginal, whether it is on the star player or the 12th player on the bench.

Peace

Actually, if it is truly "marginal," it may or may not be a foul. Is it possible that you missed the point?

"Marginal" in my world means I probably should not be called and was not obvious. The goal to me is to call the obvious, not the marginal or questionable things if clearly seen. Now that means different things to different people. I guess anything is possible in missing your point, but that is something many of us do from time to time. So you could be right for once. ;)

Peace

The ultimate desire is not to call any "marginal" fouls. But again, whether you like it or not, a marginal foul in the last 2 minutes or as a 5th foul is amplified, and less forgivable. It is a likely to get video sent to a supervisor. And the argument that a early marginal has the same effect as a late marginal call just doesn't fly.

+1

The reason why we get so caught up with late calls is the incapacity for our brains to recall all of them. The reality is, in a one-point game, we very likely did something to affect the game's outcome. If that happens in the first three quarters, very few remember, and we get a pass. That doesn't remove the fact that it happened, though.

The same goes for fouls. A player is disqualified because he commits five fouls. All five count. If one or two are marginal, they still count, regardless of when they happened. The reason people get upset about a marginal last one is because they've likely forgotten how the others came. Still, they were called, and the effect is indeed the same. Just because we don't remember how they happened doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Try that argument on a college supervisor.

Or even a HS assigner with a clue.

Players only get 5 fouls. I have been told and have used the phrase "As a crew, we need to know and recognize the difference between marginal and illegal contact." I am in the camp that as part of game awareness, we need to know who the star players are, who the rough players are, what teams are running offensively and defensively, etc. This includes having an awareness of when players have "x" number of fouls. We want to avoid fouling a kid out on marginal contact. Conversely, we should have no problem fouling a kid out on illegal contact.

Just My Opinion ...
 

For what it's worth, like technical fouls, I have never lost sleep over personal fouls that I have called, but I have lost sleep over potential personal fouls that I have passed on.

When I observe contact, I decide if it leads to an advantage, or disadvantage, decide it its illegal contact, or incidental contact, and make my decision. I always try to be consistent with my partner, with what has already happened in the game, with what we’ve called earlier in the game, and what we haven’t called earlier in the game.

Consistency (to me) means that the time of the game (first period versus fourth period) doesn't usually effect my decisions, and consistency (to me) means that the number of fouls on star players versus journeyman players doesn't usually effect my decisions. The only time that I pay attention to foul numbers is to pay attention to the number of team fouls in each half, to insure that we don't make errors (maybe correctable errors) regarding bonus or double bonus free throws.

With rare exceptions for bang bang, surprise, train wrecks (shame on me for not seeing them coming), I try to never guess.

I'm not afraid to sound a slightly late whistle (sometimes my brain take a little time to process what just happened), but there is a subjective, undefined, time limit that may cause me not to sound my whistle in such circumstances, and these are the non-calls that I may later lose sleep over.

This philosophy has successfully worked for me for many years. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Let the stone throwing begin.

Sometime calls you make early in the game may not be "right" calls. So for the sake of consistency I prefer not to just make a call because it was made earlier in the game. Your "possibilities" are not logical. You are implying that at any point of the game a call must be made if a similar call was made earlier. You are assuming earlier calls were correct and that during the course of the game the officials and players stay stagnant and do not evolve.

Your second point is also assuming that since we may try and be more diligent on making a call that "counts" to foul a player off we do not apply the same scrutiny or expectations on other players also doesn't make sense. It's like saying "#5 has 4 so let's make it count, but for the other 9 players just call em as you feel it."

Patience ...
 

I hate it when I observe some violent rebounding contact, sound my whistle to call a pushing foul on B1, but a split second later, his opponent A1 is confidently and solidly holding onto the rebound, ready to make a pass, or worse, make a bunny layup.

Less common, but also hated when I do this, I see a point guard speedily, and recklessly, driving down the lane into a sea of players, slamming violently into the chest of an legally positioned defender, so I sound my whistle to charge a player control foul, but a split second later, his defender is standing there like the Rock of Gibraltar, while the point guard is sprawled all over the floor, with the ball bouncing out of bounds.

Sometimes these scenarios don't happen to me for entire seasons (plural), but I'd be lying if I told you that they've only happened to me once, or twice, over the past thirty-seven years.

How does one get to Carnegie Hall? Patience. Patience. Patience. Wait ... I'm being told ... What? Well, they both start with the letter P. Never mind.

I am implying and assuming nothing. I am saying that you do your best to know what a foul is and call it the same from start to finish for everybody on the court. This whole thread was about straying from that concept to "keep them in the game." I am opposed to doing anything specifically designed to "keep them in the game," no matter the circumstances.

Consistency ...
 

Agree.

Journeyman player A2 commits an offensive rebounding foul late in the fourth period of a close game. The official decides that it's illegal contact that gains a slight advantage for A2. It's A2's fifth personal foul, although this is unknown to the officials because it's only a journeyman player. The covering official charges A2 with a personal foul.

A few plays later, star player A1 commits a potential offensive rebounding foul, still late in the fourth period of a close game. The physical contact is exactly the same as the situation described above. The official believes that it's illegal contact that gains a slight advantage for A1. The covering official is the same one who made the call in the situation above. Only because A1 is a star player, he knows that this would be A1's fifth personal foul. He passes on the foul because it would take Team A's star player out of the game with only a few minutes to go. With no whistle, A1 grabs the offensive rebound and thunderously dunks the basketball, putting Team A up by three points.

Not if I'm the covering official above. Never. Ever.

Consistency. Integrity. Fairness. All come to mind.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, but I must also state my usual caveat, "When in Rome ...".