Pet peeves: Keep them in the game
 

Worked a single varsity jamboree game tonight. I've never worked with our R but during his pregame, he talked about how if a player gets 4th foul, we need to work to keep them in the game. This is one of my biggest pet peeves-- I HATE it. I just can't get behind the idea that it's my job to bend the rules for the players so that they can stay in the game. In my mind, the player and coach can see how we call it and should adjust. Which side of this do you fall on?

Like it or not, a marginal call on a kid's first foul will be seen differently than the same call on his fifth foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

The last three Summers I've trained with our two local NBA officials. They say you always need to know the impact of your whistle. You should never be surprised when a kid fouls out and you should never foull a kid out on marginal contact.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I don't know how "literally" your partner meant what he said, but you don't want to give a player a cheap fifth foul. Whereas sometimes we make calls where there is doubt in our minds, for the fifth foul you want to make sure it's one that you really have no choice but to get. Is that bending the rules? Maybe. But it's a philosophy that's taught at higher-level camps. You have to know when a player has four fouls and know that a marginal fifth foul is, as Rich said, going to raise more scrutiny than a marginal first or second foul.

This is an issue of how you frame the concept. I don’t like the way your R framed it. Frankly that mentality irks me, too.

The better way to frame it, IMHO, was taught to me by an NBA official: “Know the consequences of every call you make....before you make it.” This is sooooo much easier said then done (there’s a reason he’s in the NBA and I’m not). But it’s something I strive to. And not just when players are starting to foul out, but from the opening tip on (and to some extent based on observations I make during warm-ups).

I think taking this approach makes for a more pragmatic game calling strategy.

NOTE: Saw BNR’s post before I finished this. Looks like he said the same thing. Also looks like he talked to the same NBA official.

I can do you one better. It is 1994 and I am officiating a loser's bracket game in the AAU Girls' 18U Nationals. A team from Nebraska was playing a team from a state I do not remember. The center from the Nebraska picked up her third foul by the middle of the first half and did not play the rest of the half. For those who have never officiated one of these AAU shindigs, there are at least two or three coaches from well over 200 college from across the country scouting players (and this goes for all age groups all the way down to the 10U age group).

My partner and I are walking off the court to the dressing room at half time when two coaches from a school in the Big-12 (who shall remain nameless) came up to us and asked us to goes easy on the center of the Nebraska team and let her play because they were scouting her and wanted to see her play more, :eek:.

MTD, Sr.

I wonder how many times they've tried that line.

MTD - Here is the flipside
 

Was working a guys pretty big event ( AAU ) on the East Coast. A D2 program had been all over this kid since he was a sophomore but he blew up in his junior year in high school. At that AAU game the D2 HC asked me to call 3 quick ones on the kid cause there were a bunch of small and mid major D1's starting to follow him....I thought it was pretty funny!!!!

It's reality. You want to work big games and move up, the expectation is to know your situation and make them count. I disagree that you need to work to keep them in the game. But you need to work to make sure #5 is well earned.

In reality, you shouldn't have any bull shit, dumb calls. On anybody. At any time..but really concentrate when somebody's got 4. And not just on the best player..
Have that mindset from the tip

I will go out of my way to keep anyone in the game. But the reality is that when you have big men or the best players in the game, the game goes smoother for a lot of reasons. I would rather keep those players in the game than get them out. And if I have a foul that is going to foul out a kid that is one of the better players, I want to feel confident it was a foul.

Peace

I agree with you, JRut. And to take it a step further, if I've got a player who's been playing like a goon hockey enforcer, I won't think twice about giving that player their 5th. It's about making the game better, IMO.

At least one of us falls on your side, UNI.

I had a partner about a decade ago who insisted on finding out who had four fouls. I thought it reeked of a lack of integrity. It's our job to call the fouls, not be concerned about how many they have. This partner acted more like he cared what others thought, rather than just doing his job.

In the 4th quarter I will check both books for players with 4 fouls. I want to make sure there are no discrepancies.

And whether you agree or not, it is a big deal to foul somebody out on a questionable call; it's not the same as calling a questionable foul to give them their 1st or 2nd.

If a player has five fouls, wouldn't a questionable 1st or 2nd also be included?

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 ...".

Boy some people will go to any lengths to try and make a point. A foul is a foul. But not every foul is clear-cut. When you have those gray area plays you need to use context clues in regards to what to rule.

Like it or not, being able to use systematic thinking in regards to the marginal contact and 50/50 plays is very big to supervisors. If you're one of those officials who is just steadfast in not using any type of thought process to play calling, don't ever complain when you see somebody advancing or getting better games and you don't understand why.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Since when do I care what a coach things about if I feel a call is marginal or not? Marginal is our definition of the foul, I am not looking for the value judgment from a coach, but when they show the video or they describe the play, I want it to be more than marginal to those officials (assignors) watching.

Just like the plays I show on this page, I want that most people feel that a foul was appropriate than those thinking it should not have been called.

Peace

Example: There's a drive to the basket and I could legitimately put a foul on two players. I know one has 4 fouls and the other doesn't.

Not brain surgery, but I really don't want to work with the person who fouls out the guy with 4 and then says "a foul's a foul."

"But Coach, It's A Real Rule. Really" ...
 

Multiple foul?

Just kidding.

But where's the fun if you don't foul that kid out?

At its most basic level. Just call the game that is front of you.(with whatever implications you feel that has.)

My concern with any officiating issues of judgement is that while context and situation are always factors, I (and I assume other officials) want the intent and application of rules to be the only determinant in dictating how the game is played. We make sure it is called the way the rules govern. Players and coaches get to make decisions re: tactics, style of play, quality of game etc.

( I always get a kick out of coaches who's argument with calls is "you are rewarding bad basketball" - I am just calling the game the way the rules instruct I don't have a dog in the fight with regards to how it is played)

I totally understand the being aware of the fouls you are calling and in higher level settings the expectation that officials are aware of the key and talented player and the impact on the game. I respect that too, though it is much higher level of officiating then I will likely ever aspire to.

However I am uncomfortable in situations where fellow officials or are the crew is expected to decide pre game that I'm going to be really tight on the perimeter play and let the bigs bang (persay). Then I walk in and a football team is playing a pressing bunch of shooting rabbits. Unless I adapt to call what I am seeing vs what I want to have happen I'm dictating which type of game is better and gets the lions share of the calls. Same as if you don't call the footwork/violations stuff you are choosing to reward athletcism to the detrimant of the team that spent time making sure their footwork was good in practice instead of running on the track or the weight room. Just call the game in front of you.

Keep them in the game (often determined by the way it is presented) can be something I get the same feeling about. I don't care who is deep or who wants to only play 5. But I'm not calling it one way or the other based on that. If one team wants to increase number of possessions and play 15 kids and the other team wants to play 5 kids the whole game that is on them. But if the number of possessions does get increased that means number shots, number of calls, etc are all going to go up to. So I'm not going to say well yellow only has 5 kids who can play and they need them all so make sure they only get out on the big stuff, but blue is just rolling people and pressing all over the place and doesn't care who is in the game so just call it without worrying about that stuff for them.

That is too much. IMO just call the game.

It's all relative, however it's expected to move up the ranks.

To Be Clear ...
 

Just to be clear (maybe I wasn't clear in my original post), I'm advocating calling both of these fouls (based on the words illegal contact and advantage), or calling neither of these fouls (based on the word slight). I'm not an advocate of just calling the foul on the journeyman player, while passing on the star player to keep him in the game (based on the words physical contact, and situation, exactly the same).

As much as some want to try make officiating and play calling black and white and act as if it occurs in a vacuum, that's simply never going to be the case. There is always gray area that requires context and the ability to "intelligently" apply the rules to each play situation.

In my experience officials who fully fail to grasp this are often the ones who also don't understand why their schedules never advance to where they think it should.

We can quibble with the phrase "keep them in the game" if that's what was actually said in the OP's example. That's a poor choice of words. But the context is clear. If you are going to disqualify a player- ANY player and particularly key players- your "marginal needle" needs to be tuned accordingly.

I like to know who has 4 fouls so we be sure to remove the player on his / her 5th before we put the ball back in play (or are about to put the ball in play only to hear the buzzer)

Same here. Same goes for those that try to never call what is expected by rules either. There is always a happy medium. Many for some reason cannot find that medium.

Peace

Buzzer ???
 

You must be working with the same scorekeepers that I sometimes work with. Not knowing in advance who some of these scorekeepers are has gotten me into the habit of keeping an eye on the team fouls posted on the scoreboard in all of my games, even with experienced veteran scorekeepers, to prevent me from screwing up on a bonus or double bonus situation which could lead to a correctable error situation (unless it's too late to correct). Knowing that we're about to shoot bonus free throws also forces me to keep an eye on the shooter when my partner calls a foul, thus avoiding another type of correctable error.

Intelligently Applied ...
 

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation.

There's a reason why this is at the beginning of the rulebook.

Yup. The opposite end of the spectrum is folks who think they can apply their own set of rules and personal philosophy to every situation regardless of rules/expectations.

Yes, this directly precedes Rule 1 in the rules book and I find myself increasingly referencing it in pre-games and conversations with fellow officials.

Its a helpful reminder for some who get too caught up in trying to follow the exact letter of the law in each situation when judgement and discretion are required.

It can also be used to rationalize not making the right call.

Sure it can. But good officiating requires knowing the difference.

That's sort of the whole point.