Tracking fouls?

[stilerng]

I sincerely appreciate the feedback on the tracking of fouls and the calling false double fouls. Very helpful insights. I plan to go back, read again and take notes to justify it in my thick scull.
I agree with Jurrisac that even though it usually isn't called as such the fouls usually do get taken care of. However I don't think you guys read the case. Page 28 in my book - In short B1 and B2 foul A1 at the same time (Neva's example). Look at the ruling: free throws for each foul. That means both B1 and B2 are charged with a foul. Now who makes THAT call?
Now lets look directly under that at 4.19.11 Case - False Multiiple Foul
I think this happens often. I'll describe it a little different and you see if I'm being fair to the text. A-1 goes up for a shot and is fouled by B-1. He is then fouled by B-2 who move into his landing area while A-1 was in the air. We'll usually call the 1st foul. I have yet to see both fouls called.
Replay - Same play but B-2 has legal guarding position. The shot goes in the basket. (I could make it even uglier by adding that A-3 or B-3 goaltends but that's kind of rediculous - though possible) 1st give your split second answer as though it just happened to you. 2nd think about it and then give your answer. Now read 4.19.6 case. This is the proper call.
Because I've studied this I think I could make the call (provided I review it occassionaly) but I haven't yet and wonder if I should! What do you think?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by stilerng
That means both B1 and B2 are charged with a foul. Now who makes THAT call?

The official that makes the call makes that decision.

Originally posted by stilerng
Now lets look directly under that at 4.19.11 Case - False Multiiple Foul
I think this happens often. I'll describe it a little different and you see if I'm being fair to the text. A-1 goes up for a shot and is fouled by B-1. He is then fouled by B-2 who move into his landing area while A-1 was in the air. We'll usually call the 1st foul. I have yet to see both fouls called.
Replay - Same play but B-2 has legal guarding position. The shot goes in the basket. (I could make it even uglier by adding that A-3 or B-3 goaltends but that's kind of rediculous - though possible) 1st give your split second answer as though it just happened to you. 2nd think about it and then give your answer. Now read 4.19.6 case. This is the proper call.
Because I've studied this I think I could make the call (provided I review it occassionaly) but I haven't yet and wonder if I should! What do you think?

Of course you could call a false double foul or a play like you have described. My question to you is why would you want to make that call? These types of fouls are not called because mostly what they are not going to be understood or accepted. Even when officials screw up and one calls a block, the other calls a charge (PC Foul) and the officials do the right thing and apply the rules as stated (going with a double foul) it is not believed. If you call a false double foul, someone is going to question that call and assignors and evaluators are going to wonder why as well. If you want to go looking for crap, you will find it. I would leave the crap in the toilet (sorry for the image) and call the things that are most likely to be believed and accepted.

Peace

[stilerng]

I went back and read as I said. Here's a couple things:

Rust - "Taken out, it would give A2 free reign to commit a foul once it was clear that A1 was going to foul. Can't have that."

Easy call - Intentional foul

Rut - "leave the drap in the bowl"

Sounds good, but don't you mean leave it in the rulebook? did you just tell me to see the play, know what the call should be by rule, but call what will be accepted? This is integrity and "oldfashioned good judgement"? Don't get me wrong. What you said is true about why NOT to make these calls. I said I was thick sculled and I truly don't think I'm as sharp as many officials. I'm looking for a way to justify what calls to make and not make. I guess reading the rulebook can be dangerous sometimes. I am definitely enjoying working on my scull. Don't give up on me. Thanks.

[JRutledge]

I am just saying you should not be a maverick. No one else is making those calls, why should you. Those rules are in the rulebook for a reason. But I would not spend my time calling them. Call the first foul. If you start calling multiple and false double fouls all the time, eventually people will forget about the other good things you have done and focus on this rule that no one has seen called.

Division 1 Official Marvin Sykes (lives in Chicago) has told me and others several times, "Officiating is 5% book, 95% common sense." In my opinion it is not good common sense to make calls that you have to look deep into the rulebook to find. Call the obvious and what everyone can easily understand. That does not mean there are no exceptions, just a philosophy at least I follow.

Peace

[lrpalmer3]

Seems like:

The higher the level, the more they want you to protect the stars when you can. Your ability to fairly administer this philosophy will determine how far you go.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by lrpalmer3
Seems like:

The higher the level, the more they want you to protect the stars when you can. Your ability to fairly administer this philosophy will determine how far you go.

That doesn't make any sense at all. How can you possibly be "fair" and still protect stars?

I also disagree completely with what you are trying to get at. It may be an unwritten NBA philosophy, but the NBA is entertainment, not basketball. That philosophy has no place at all imo at the amateur level. And "how far you will go" will depend on how good an official you are, not any philosophy like protecting certain players. You ain't gonna go too far if you're protecting one team's star to the detriment of the other team. The coach of that other team is gonna be screaming for your head. As well he should be.

[wwcfoa43]

I agree with JRutledge in that no one expects you to call a false double in the situation where shooting A1 gets hit on the arm by B1 but then B2 is in a legal guarding position and gets knocked down by A1 in the attempt. In fact, we have a definite tendency to ignore the second foul.

IMHO, we should not always ignore it. In the case where A1 would clearly not score because A1 had to run B2 over to score then there is no way we should allow A1 the bucket unless the B1 foul caused A1 to foul B2.

On a related note, we would not allow A1 to travel and score after being fouled. Even though we have a tendency to relax and stop officiating when the first foul occurs we must be prepared to make calls that occur after the B1 foul because the ball is still alive. If A1 takes four steps and then scores we have to waive the basket due to the violation that occured after the B1 foul.

So too in the case that A1 fouls B2 after the B1 foul. We must continue to officiate and make the correct call so that A1 is not allowed an undue advantage.

Perhaps if it gets called more often and in the right situations we can educate people about what occured and why the call was made.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I also disagree completely with what you are trying to get at. It may be an unwritten NBA philosophy, but the NBA is entertainment, not basketball. That philosophy has no place at all imo at the amateur level.

I personally have never bought into the fact that the NBA does this. Not because it is not talked about, but I see stars foul out all the time. Shaq fouls out a lot and he is one of the best players in the game. Tim Duncan fouls out quite a few times as well. These are two of the biggest stars and they have in big games not finished those games.

I think this is a myth like many other things you hear players and announcers talk about.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by wwcfoa43
I agree with JRutledge in that no one expects you to call a false double in the situation where shooting A1 gets hit on the arm by B1 but then B2 is in a legal guarding position and gets knocked down by A1 in the attempt. In fact, we have a definite tendency to ignore the second foul.

IMHO, we should not always ignore it. In the case where A1 would clearly not score because A1 had to run B2 over to score then there is no way we should allow A1 the bucket unless the B1 foul caused A1 to foul B2.

The problem with calling this, someone is always going to make the argument that A1 was knocked into B2. I have never seen this called and I am not going to be the first one to do so. I would think you better have a great look on the tape if you make that call. If not, why bother.

Originally posted by wwcfoa43
On a related note, we would not allow A1 to travel and score after being fouled. Even though we have a tendency to relax and stop officiating when the first foul occurs we must be prepared to make calls that occur after the B1 foul because the ball is still alive. If A1 takes four steps and then scores we have to waive the basket due to the violation that occured after the B1 foul.

So too in the case that A1 fouls B2 after the B1 foul. We must continue to officiate and make the correct call so that A1 is not allowed an undue advantage.

You are right, but that can be easily explained and easily seen on tape and to observers. Not very many people have ever seen a false double foul like this or needed to make a call like this. Even with a multiple foul someone got their first or caused the most disadvantage on the play.

Originally posted by wwcfoa43
Perhaps if it gets called more often and in the right situations we can educate people about what occured and why the call was made.

The situation has to happen first. You cannot call something that does not apply. Of course you can go looking for situations, but if you have to go looking then in my opinion you should not make that call. This better jump out at you like there is no other logical explanation. I personally do not want to make a call that no one completely understands or even realizes is a rule.

Peace

[wwcfoa43]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I personally do not want to make a call that no one completely understands or even realizes is a rule.

I am not sure that I concern myself too much about the knowledge base of those that are viewing the game in terms of what rules I use and which ones I do not. Even rules that are seldom used have an underlying philosophy and purpose. It is important to know the rule, why it exists and be prepared to call it, regardless if it is not well known. I am prepared to explain the rationale for the call to observers and if they shake their head and say "Gee, that's a new one for me..." then that is okay.

[JRutledge]

If that is the way you see it, you have that right. I am saying the underlining philosophy that I have adopted and what I have learned over the years is rules like multiple fouls and many false double foul situations need to be left alone. We do not have enough officials that know how to properly call a simple shooting foul, I am not going to be concerned with a rule that no one else calls.

Peace

[Goose]

The issue stilerng brings up is an interesting one.

Flash back to more than a few years ago and I happen to be working a varsity game with a well established, and should I say, playoff veteran.

The game is between a really good team and an average team, both in the same division. One team is notorious for a viscious pressing defensive attack while the other is content to play zone. Midway through the half at a timeout, my partner tells me to look at the scoreboard and the foul situation. The good team has 6 team fouls and the other team has 1. He then asks me if I think we are missing anything. My basic reply is that one team is pressing the hell out of the other and thus are committing more fouls, not to mention their aggressive man-to-man defense. He says O.K, and then over the next 3 minutes proceeds to call the next 6 fouls on the weaker team.

It was obvious to me that he was trying to even it up before halftime, and he did succeed. I lost whatever respect I had for the guy after that. Of course, I also witnessed him being spit on by a coach that year and not call a T, but then again, he was a regular in the State Playoffs year after year.

But truth be told, if you don't even it up, you probably won't advance. Personally, I will never do it, and I'm sure it has hurt me over the years.

Fast forward a few more years when I was training an up and comming varsity official. I was the R, and after the game he asks me if I thought we had done a good game because he thought we did. I asked him why he thought so, and his reply was, and I kid you not, "Because the fouls were even!"
I sort of mumbled and shrugged O.K....Moral of that story was that he was promoted the following year to an all varsity schedule that featured all 'A' teams and he too has worked quite a few State playoff games.

So, the way I see it is, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personally, all I can say is that I have no problems sleeping at night and can live with myself after all these years not wondering if it was my ability or was it my schmoozing the system that got me where I am. And that my friend is something these guys will never be able to answer.

goose

[stilerng]

Kudo's to you Jurrasic. I think your right on!

Thanks for all your input Rut. Really appreciate it. I'm moving into college this year and have been struggling on my mind over some of this stuff.

Goose: Thanks for the comments. Worth much more that 2 cents.

[26 Year Gap]

To borrow a phrase some use about education...Don't 'dumb down' your game just to make it 'fair'. I have had games where one team goes into the double bonus in the first half while the other team just had possession. And in the 2nd half, the roles were reversed. I think it had more to do with adjustments in coaching at halftime than any attempt to 'even it up'. If you were having surgery I think you would rather have someone who was going to make the right call than a guy who said I think I used too much suture on the last guy.

[stmaryrams]

Goose,
I had a similar sitch with team A driving the lane and the other pulling up to take 3's. The aggressive team A stayed in a zone and let the others shoot the three. When they drove the lane they were getting fouled. At half it was 10-2 in team fouls. Coach B mentions this and we reply "You're Right!" What more could we say. It's just the nature of that game.