Fouls at the end of the game...

[SF]

At an association meeting tonight we had quite the debate over fouls at the end of the game. Of course, the newer interpretation of intentional fouls clarifies that, yes, fouling is a part of the game, and no, they should not all be intentional fouls.

Still, there emerged two very opposing points of view. One side believed that if a player touches/grabs another player and intends to stop the clock, the foul should be called even if contact is minimal (perhaps not even enough to be called a foul in another situation). The idea is that not calling the foul would simply result in the player fouling again, more violently, which would only aggravate the situation.

The other side says no matter the situation, a foul is a foul. If the contact is not sufficient, even at the end of the game, they will not call a foul. If the player reacts by fouling another player too violently, they will be penalized appropriately. They should know better. The advantage is calling the game consistenly/entirely by the book.

Opinions?

[zebraman]

Put me in that first camp. If I know a team is trying to foul, I'm not going to make them chop the opponent's arm off before I crack the whistle.

Sure there has to be contact, but if they are trying to foul and I let some contact go, the next foul attempt is quite likely going to be a serious hatchet job.

I've seen a good game deteriorate into some ugly end-of-game frustration in that case when officials have not called the first contact. That being said, I've also seen officials anticipate contact in this situation and blow their whistle on a clean steal. Be quick, but don't anticipate a certain foul.

At a time-out in a game like that, I normally tell my partners something like this: "We aren't going to make anything up, but since we know the defense is going to make contact if they don't get a quick steal, call it!"

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Oct 25th, 2005 at 11:52 PM]

[BktBallRef]

I agree with Z. I've always been told that when you know a team is trying to foul to stop the clock, call the foul when the first obvious contact is made. Otherwise, the fouls will become harder and harder.

[walter]

I'm a big believer in Camp #1. I've watched games where the officials in this type of situation don't call the light one and then next thing you know, a kid slams somebody. If there's an opportunity, I get together with my partner(s) and we basically agree that since we know they are going to foul, on the first contact give them what they want. That way, you (hopefully) avoid the hatchet job. As long as there is a play on, or something that looks like a play on the ball, I'm calling the common foul. A grab of the jersey, the bearhug, a blatant shove, etc., that's intentional.

[M&M Guy]

All right, I'm going to be devil's advocate here. What you're saying is you would call a game differently at the end of a game than the beginning? Contact that isn't a foul in the first two minutes is a foul in the last two minutes? What else do you call differently? Is this fair to the players?

[jritchie]

I don't believe it should be considered, "calling the end of the game differently", i'm thinking more along the lines of "good game management", if you know they are trying to foul, why make them kill someone? yes you may let a little smack go early in the game because they can play through it, but when you know the light smack that don't get called is going to lead to a MRS (mugging,rape, or stabbing) i'm pretty sure that is just preventative officiating, not really calling it differently!

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by jritchie
I don't believe it should be considered, "calling the end of the game differently", i'm thinking more along the lines of "good game management", if you know they are trying to foul, why make them kill someone? yes you may let a little smack go early in the game because they can play through it, but when you know the light smack that don't get called is going to lead to a MRS (mugging,rape, or stabbing) i'm pretty sure that is just preventative officiating, not really calling it differently!

But you ARE calling differently by letting that little slap go in the beginning, but calling it late. AND, you let the team that wants to stop the clock get away with it by calling a foul with contact that you wouldn't call as foul in the beginning. Isn't that unfair to the team that's trying to hold the ball? In NCAA-W, this year a POI is they want us to call an intentional foul on ANY foul away from the ball where the only purpose is to stop the clock. And we've had the discussion on this board about calling an intentional foul if you hear the coach telling his team to foul. So the issue of fouling to stop the clock is important enough that the ruling bodies felt it deserves a harsher penalty (intentional) than just a common foul. So why would you put one team at an unfair disadvantage according to how the rules committees want it called?

Of course, if it's a foul, call it. And since it's the end of a close game, we're going to be more aware of possible foul situations, so we should (will) be on top of our calls so that we won't miss actual fouls that could lead to harder ones later. And I'm all for game management; maybe that means stepping in closer to the players when a foul is called so it doesn't escalate. Maybe it means talking to the coach or captain to remind them to watch how they foul so they don't get penalized for something worse. There are things we can do to manage a game so things don't escalate to MRS levels. And, if it does get to MRS levels, there are MRS penalties. But I think it puts the one team at a disadvantage if they can keep the ball away from the other team, and all that team has to do is initiate some sort of "minor" contact to stop the clock.

If it's a foul, call it. If it's not, don't make something up just on the excuse you want to keep them from doing something worse later.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by jritchie
I don't believe it should be considered, "calling the end of the game differently", i'm thinking more along the lines of "good game management", if you know they are trying to foul, why make them kill someone?

Aree these the only two choices? Either (a) call every teeny touch, or (b) wait until they hack an arm off?

If the team with the ball is trying to stay away from the defense, so they won't get fouled, and if they are doing a decent job of it, then why not reward them, by not stopping the clock? Call anything that would normally be a foul, as a foul, and call the hard, nasty ones as intentional.

[walter]

M&M, the NCAA POI is something I totally agree with. If the foul is away from the ball in this situation, I agree that should be intentional. What I am saying, and i think others are saying is to prevent the mugging on the ball, call the common foul if there is contact and an attempt to play the ball. No one has siad they are going to make something up. What people have said is they will call the "light" contact in this situation. On our board we have a member of the NFHS rules commitee and he asked us this at our interpretation meeting. How many times have you seen a kid swipe at the ball handler, barely hit him, and then look at you when the call is not made, as if to say I fouled him, and then go back and really whack someone drawing the intentional. According to Jack, citing discussions during NFHS rules committee meetings, that happens a lot. According to Jack, they were not suggesting that every foul in this situation be a common foul nor should every one be an intentional foul. They agreed that awarding free throws or the ball out of bounds because of common fouls being called, even when the coach is yelling for it, was not rewarding the fouling team. Their position was hard fouls, grabbing/bearhugging fouls, fouls off the ball, were being called common fouls instaed of intentional fouls. As you stated, they also believed that there are proper ways to foul without committing an intentional foul. Fouling down the stretch is a part of the game. It is our job to make sure that the rules are applied properly. The rules clearly state that all contact is not a foul. In my opinion, and according to Jack at our meeting, calling a foul when an attempt to play the ball is made should be a common foul unless the contact is overly severe or excessive in these situations. A mere swipe without contact is not a foul. A swipe with contact (even if slight) in this situation, to me anyway, should almost always (99% of the time) be called a foul.

[David B]

Originally posted by M&M Guy

But you ARE calling differently by letting that little slap go in the beginning, but calling it late. AND, you let the team that wants to stop the clock get away with it by calling a foul with contact that you wouldn't call as foul in the beginning. Isn't that unfair to the team that's trying to hold the ball? In NCAA-W, this year a POI is they want us to call an intentional foul on ANY foul away from the ball where the only purpose is to stop the clock. And we've had the discussion on this board about calling an intentional foul if you hear the coach telling his team to foul. So the issue of fouling to stop the clock is important enough that the ruling bodies felt it deserves a harsher penalty (intentional) than just a common foul. So why would you put one team at an unfair disadvantage according to how the rules committees want it called?

Of course, if it's a foul, call it. And since it's the end of a close game, we're going to be more aware of possible foul situations, so we should (will) be on top of our calls so that we won't miss actual fouls that could lead to harder ones later. And I'm all for game management; maybe that means stepping in closer to the players when a foul is called so it doesn't escalate. Maybe it means talking to the coach or captain to remind them to watch how they foul so they don't get penalized for something worse. There are things we can do to manage a game so things don't escalate to MRS levels. And, if it does get to MRS levels, there are MRS penalties. But I think it puts the one team at a disadvantage if they can keep the ball away from the other team, and all that team has to do is initiate some sort of "minor" contact to stop the clock.

If it's a foul, call it. If it's not, don't make something up just on the excuse you want to keep them from doing something worse later.

There are many times in a game that its called differently anyway.

Early in the game we might want to call the hand check to get it out of their system.

Late in the game, I might give them the benefit of the doubt if it doesn't affect the play.

End of game situations demand a different mindset IMO.

I will make sure that there is a good foul for example when I know the guy has four fouls etc.,

Call it what you might, but I consider that good officiating.

The same applies to intentional fouls. If I'm coaching I know what's coming, the kids know what's coming so we can officiate the same way.

At least that's my take on this situation. Why did FED address it? Because there was a problem with officials calling everything an intentional foul.

Thansk
David

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by David B
Early in the game we might want to call the hand check to get it out of their system.
Late in the game, I might give them the benefit of the doubt if it doesn't affect the play.

If it's a hand-check foul early, why isn't the same contact a foul later? Or, conversely, if it's not a foul at the end of the game because it didn't affect the play, why would that same contact be a foul early?

End of game situations demand a different mindset IMO.

Agreed.

The same applies to intentional fouls. If I'm coaching I know what's coming, the kids know what's coming so we can officiate the same way.

Agreed as well. But it appears you might be contradicting yourself a little by saying you don't officiate the same way at the beginning of the game than you do at the end. That's my whole point - I think we need to be consistent throughout the whole game, so the coaches and players do know what to expect.

At least that's my take on this situation. Why did FED address it? Because there was a problem with officials calling everything an intentional foul..

Actually, I thought the reason FED and NCAA addressed this was because officials were not calling the intentional. We were just calling common fouls in cases where it was obvious, according to the rules, the player was fouling only to stop the clock. Both committees feel fouling only to stop the clock is important enough to warrant an intentional foul, which is a harsher penalty than just a common foul.

It does require us to think a little more out there. Was there a play on the ball, or did a player just grab another so we would call the foul? Most of us in the past didn't have the guts to call an intentional in this late-game situation, but we're being told we should. That's because we're penalizing a team for being ahead and being able to control the ball, while all the other team needs to do is foul somebody, anybody. Yes, that's the way it's been, but that's not the way they want it called. Game management is important, but I wonder if we might be a little lazy or gutless by calling the "slight" contact now, rather than having to make the decision if a later, harder foul is intentional or flagrant. It's up to the players to make the plays. We can do what we can to talk players out of doing something stoopid, but let's not penalize the team that's ahead and doing a good job of keep-away.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by walter
A swipe with contact (even if slight) in this situation, to me anyway, should almost always (99% of the time) be called a foul.

This is the part that I have a hard time with. I've seen games where the team with the ball is playing keep away, and all they're getting is minor taps. Stuff that would never be called at anyother time of the game. Why call it now? It seems to me it puts the team with the ball at a disadvantage that isn't intended by the rules. If the defense can't get close enough to the ball to get a good solid, but not intentional foul, why swing things their way?

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by rainmaker

This is the part that I have a hard time with. I've seen games where the team with the ball is playing keep away, and all they're getting is minor taps. Stuff that would never be called at anyother time of the game. Why call it now? It seems to me it puts the team with the ball at a disadvantage that isn't intended by the rules. If the defense can't get close enough to the ball to get a good solid, but not intentional foul, why swing things their way?

Yea - what she said.

[ChuckElias]

Here's my take for what it's worth, and it's pretty much the same as Juulie's.

If the offensive team is successfully playing keep-away, then the defense is going to have make a legitimate foul to stop the clock.

If the offensive team gets the ball into the hands of its best FT shooter and s/he tucks the ball away waiting for the foul, then the very first tiny bit of contact draws my whistle.

IOW, it's up to the offensive team how this situation plays out.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by rainmaker

This is the part that I have a hard time with. I've seen games where the team with the ball is playing keep away, and all they're getting is minor taps. Stuff that would never be called at anyother time of the game. Why call it now? It seems to me it puts the team with the ball at a disadvantage that isn't intended by the rules. If the defense can't get close enough to the ball to get a good solid, but not intentional foul, why swing things their way?

We'd all like to believe that we call the game the same from the beginning of the game to the end... and we do try to, but we live in the real world, not fantasy land. How many of us have got together with partners at time-outs and said, "we need to tighten this game up a bit." Or conversely, maybe we've said, "I think we're calling it a bit tight and getting in the way of some flow. Let's back off a bit." ?? I know I have. It's called adjusting to the game at hand.

I think that is the same logic at the end of the game. Earlier in the game, the offense was trying to score and a slight foul interrupted their chance. Now they're just trying to milk time off the clock and the defense is going to make a foul while making an attempt to play the ball. If I pass on the slight contact, the next one is going to be a heck of a lot harder just to "make sure" and it might end up being intentional. Game management and adjusting to the game at hand.

Z