The 2004-2005 was my first season as a high school Hoops Official. I've done other sports for years, so Im not exactly a rookie to officiating. During the season, my partner and I were critiqued on a game and were told that we needed to keep the difference in team fouls in mind when we make our calls. I didn't say anything to this, but I didnt agree, since the game was VERY close, and we werent calling the game tight.. After giving us our critique, the officials went out to tdo the varsity game while we watched. They looked good, but during their halftime talk, they mentioned several players and the number of fouls that they had. One of the officials even mentioned NOT calling a fould because it would have been the 3rd on a particular player. This struck me as inappropriate, and pretty much goes against how I feel I should officiate a game. My Question is...am I wrong in thinking that they were off base by tracking individual player fouls?

While I don't really agree with what those guys told you, I'll share some of my thoughts and let you take what you think isn't garbage and trash the rest.

1. I do try to keep track of the individual fouls during a game. It is good to be aware of the fact that Blue #33 has 3 fouls. There are game management reasons to know this info. Here is an example. If Blue #33 commits another foul, the coach is probably going to want to substitute for him, so you can be a little slower to administer the throw-in or last FT to give the coach a chance to send a sub to the table. Same thing for a player that gets two early ones or three at some point in the first half.
The most that I will do in terms of calling the game is pass on a borderline call against the kid, if we have had a couple of borderline ones on him already or if two players hit an opponent and I know how many each player has, I'll report it on the player with fewer.
No player will get away with anything that he shouldn't though.
(Oh, wait, I've purposely reported a wrong number to keep a girl in the game who had four and her team only had five players and they were down 20 in the 4th quarter. :))

2. If the team fouls reach a large disparity that is part of the game. I've seen a difference of 10+ fouls completely reverse in the second half and the opponent is being charge with all the fouls.
Now I also do stay aware of this and if it is 8-2 or something I will try very hard not to miss one that is there against the team with 2, but I won't make anything up. That just isn't right. The opponent may be playing better defense or they may be in a zone and the other team is not driving to the basket. There are many reasons for the team foul total to be unequal at some point in a game.

Like the individual player case, I also may pass on contact that is borderline against the team with 8, again if I believe that a couple of borderline calls have already gone against them.
Finally, a foul that has to be called, the contact creates a clear advantage, will be called no matter what the foul count is. I don't care if it is 15-1.

So I'm aware of it and I'm not out to stick it to anyone, but sometimes it just goes that way.

Just my humble opinion.

Darrell, your instincts are right. The philosophy used by those officials is not only wrong, but also goes completely against what we're supposed to stand for as officials. Our job is to call the game fairly, evenly and consistently at both ends, no matter what the foul counts are. "Evening up" isn't calling the game fairly. What those clowns are doing is trying to please both coaches while avoiding possible confrontation at the same time.

From a political standpoint, you're probably better off not bringing this up to them though. Just nod your head to their crappy advice, and then ignore them and keep calling your game the way the way you think it should be called.

Coaches complaining about the disparity in fouls is one of my pet peeves. Two teams of different skill levels, who are coached differently, who have different strategies and who at points in the game will have different scores will behave differently!

Don't they know that it can be a winning strategy to play more agressively and possibly commit more fouls? Perhaps one team is winning because of this (or losing by less). If we were to "even things up" we would then be allowing one team to benefit from the strategy and then benefit from the evening up.

A few lines I use with coaches when they complain about this:

"You and your players have more control of how many fouls I call than I do."

"All I am doing is keeping track."

[If the team is also winning]. "The score is not the same either. If you want I could make both even."

[If the disparity is not too big.] "It would statistically stranger if the fouls were evely split than unevenly." (I do not use this one much anymore since I have obviously taken more stats courses than most coaches.)

In the end, teams that score more will have more points, teams that travel more will have more travel calls and teams that foul more will have more foul calls. There is nothing in the universe that will or should make these things split evenly.

Foul disparity
 

Dawg - It seems you've got the right idea. I agree with jurrasic. Call your conscience and keep your integrity. However I know some successful officials who have been quoted as giving the same advise. I must admit, I'm a bit confused by this. How can we make calls based on their own merits if we're keeping track of such things?

Now this ought to stir things up some:
Nevada really blew the call when he said he had a choice when the multiple foul occurred. NFHS 4.19.10 Read rule and case.
Don't blow a cork Neva. I wouldn't call it that way (though by the book) either. Would anyone? It seems some things in the book ought to be deleted.

As a "good rules guy" you know it's true don't ya Jurrasic? And this is not the only one we NEVER will call. For instance, When is the last time anyone called a False Double Foul? And there's much more we don't call that we have rules support for. Some things should be deleted, some should be CALLED!

Point is, "How do we maintain integrity when we know what the rules say but don't make the calls". I'm seriously looking for some insight here. It's obvious you can't adher to the "letter of the law" and judgement is of utmost importance but how does one know where to draw the line?

The crew that did the NCAA Championship game fouled out Illinois' starting centre pretty early in the 2nd half.

What do you think their philosophy is on "foul tracking"?

Their philosophy is obviously, "Choose which team ought to lose, and then foul out their star asap." Any Illinois fan could have told you that!

Nice one !

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/lol2.gif

Re: Foul disparity
 

We should never delete the multiple foul. Although it will only be called once in 100 officials lifetimes, it is there for a reason. 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.

False double foul. Several time a year...perhaps even a few time a game some nights. A false double foul in merely two fouls that occur against opposite teams without time running off the clock. Example: A1 fouls B1. While B1 is shooting 1+1, B2, trying to get to the rebound, fouls A2 (before the ball is touched). That is a false double foul. It's there to clarify that even those they happened at the same "clock time" they are not a double foul.

1)From a practical standpoint, 99.9% of the time you do pick one of the 2 players who foul someone at approximately the same time and charge that player with the foul alone. I think that the multiple foul definition should remain in the book though-- to keep our options open if we ever feel 2 defenders <b>deliberately</b> went after an opponent. I've seen that happen, and properly called, a coupla times. It's a deterrent, and as such, is another weapon in our game-control arsenal.

2) False double fouls are fairly common, as Camron said also. They might not be recognized as such, but they are usually handled correctly--i.e.- in the order they occur in NFHS rules. One of the most common false double fouls is a common foul, followed by a retaliatory "T" on the foulee.

I'll add the smiley for you :D since the player that fouled out wasn't hardly their star.

Look, up on the monitor! It's a dictionary! It's a thesaurus! No, it's Mr. Grammar Guy!!

Able to annoy an entire forum with a single keystroke. . .

You're right. I was listening to Billy Packer as the authority on that subject. Silly me!

You got me! :)

I do track fouls.
 

I only track fouls to know who and when will be in the bonus. I do not care who has more fouls and change what I call based on the foul difference. I think officials should know what the foul count is, but that is so you know you are doing the right thing. If a team sits in a zone defense all day and they have very few fouls that is to be expected. If a team is shooting jump shots all game long, they are not going to get fouled either. That is usually my response to a coach that tries to suggest something is wrong because they have fouled more times (call it both ways comments). I really couldn't care less what coaches ultimately think. I am not going to change to please them. It is their job to adjust. It is our job to call our game.

Peace

tracking fouls
 

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?

Re: tracking fouls
 

The official that makes the call makes that decision.

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

tracking fouls
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

again 2 cents
 

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

tracking fouls
 

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.

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.

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.

May I throw in my 2 cents for whatever it's worth? (2 cents here, 2 cents there, pretty soon you're talking about real money!)

I think knowledge of the foul count is an important game-management tool. But how you use that tool is just as important. It's no different than putting me in an operating room, with all the same tools as the surgeon, and saying I'm going to end up with the same results. It ain't happenin', even if I do stay at a Holiday Inn Express. To say that we need to even up the fouls because one team has more is a totally inappropriate use of that tool. But, knowledge of the foul count can help. What if the foul count is 10-2, and both teams are playing a similar style? That tells me we as a crew need to know why. Are we missing something? Are my partners calling something that I'm not? Maybe I'm the one that needs to get my head back in the game. Of course, if the fouls are 6-5, I want to know that I'm going to watch for shooters if my partner calls another foul. I need to know if we're shooting 1-and-1, or 2 shots. And, of course, a controversial aspect is the following: A1 goes up for a shot, and is sandwiched by B1 and B2, who foul at basically the same time. If I know B2 has 4 fouls, and B1 has 1, all other things being equal, I might give the foul to B1. Key words: "all other things being equal". Am I favoring a player? Some people say yes. Other people say it's good game management to make sure the 5th foul is obvious. If your supervisor or assignor tells you it's accepted practice to never call the double foul when B1 and B2 foul at the same time, then it's probably best not to make that call, even if you don't like that interpretation.

Having the tools is one thing; how you use them is another.