Tracking fouls?

[azbigdawg]

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?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[wwcfoa43]

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.

[stilerng]

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?

[canuckrefguy]

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"?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
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!

[canuckrefguy]

Nice one !

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by stilerng
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?

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by stilerng

1) 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.

2) For instance, When is the last time anyone called a False 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 deliberately 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.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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!

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

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by tomegun
I'll add the smiley for you 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. . .

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by tomegun

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

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

[tomegun]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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 got me!

[JRutledge]

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