Preventative Officiating

[Luv4Asian8]

Had a situation during a scrimmage in the post play (of course, right?) where A5 and B5 are both jostling for position 3/4 across the key. I'm lead (2-whistle). A mentor of mine told me to identify the knuckleheads early, and here they were. I tell them to knock it off, but neither heed my warning. Then the ball comes toward me in my peripheral outside the 3-pt arc, also aggressively contested. I widen my angle to try to see both actions (ball & post). In my judgment nothing really happens either way.

However, my evaluator at the scrimmage saw me warning the post players and thought she saw me take my eyes off of them when the ball entered my area. She then told me that the post players really became more aggressive.

Should I have killed the play with a double-foul on the post play since they didn't "hear" me or protected the shooter? I know that many areas frown upon the "double foul"....get the perpretrator first. But I couldn't tell. How do you handle this kind of thing?

[Junker]

Obviously you want to try to get the first illegal contact, but in the situation you describe, I see no problem with a double foul. I called one in a similar situation last week. I had 2 guys that were playing with their hands, at one point they got all tangled up bumping one another and I just called them both. I don't mind an occasional double foul early in a game, but I don't think I've ever called one in the second half.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Junker

Obviously you want to try to get the first illegal contact, but in the situation you describe, I see no problem with a double foul. I called one in a similar situation last week. I had 2 guys that were playing with their hands, at one point they got all tangled up bumping one another and I just called them both. I don't mind an occasional double foul early in a game, but I don't think I've ever called one in the second half.

In a perfect world, we'd call the foul on the instigator. But this isn't a perfect world and sometimes players just start going at each other at the same time. Sometimes a double foul is just what the doctor ordered. I've called one in the second half before. It stopped the shenanigans immediately.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by zebraman

In a perfect world, we'd call the foul on the instigator. But this isn't a perfect world and sometimes players just start going at each other at the same time. Sometimes a double foul is just what the doctor ordered. I've called one in the second half before. It stopped the shenanigans immediately.

I agree - don't call them often, but there are times when they're the perfect tool.......and it usually gets their attention when other methods haven't worked.

[blindzebra]

Never hurts to tell your partner at the next dead ball, "Hey we are watching these two!"

I'm not talking about getting together either, I'm talking about across the court, loud enough for the knuckleheads to hear it.

[jontheref]

There are really two ways to go. Get the initial foul --thats fine. But something I like to do is give them the double foul and then go to the players and tell them respectfully that we are going down the other end and I will be waiting for you. If they are any kind of smart--(???) then they know that the possibility exists of a double at the other end. I tell the players, "hey look we arent going to have the World Wrestling Federation here. We are gonna play ball and if you want to take an early shower, I have no problem." Double fouls are our friends.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Luv4Asian8

Had a situation during a scrimmage in the post play (of course, right?) where A5 and B5 are both jostling for position 3/4 across the key. I'm lead (2-whistle). A mentor of mine told me to identify the knuckleheads early, and here they were. I tell them to knock it off, but neither heed my warning. Then the ball comes toward me in my peripheral outside the 3-pt arc, also aggressively contested. I widen my angle to try to see both actions (ball & post). In my judgment nothing really happens either way.

Should I have killed the play with a double-foul on the post play since they didn't "hear" me or protected the shooter? I know that many areas frown upon the "double foul"....get the perpretrator first. But I couldn't tell. How do you handle this kind of thing?

Couple of points here. Assuming NCAA womens and 3-person. On the womens side, the Lead has that entire quadrant, so yes, if the ball came into your primary, you now have ball responsiblity. However, you still have the post play action going on as well. I think a better question would have been (again assuming NCAA women's) where do I focus my attention as the lead in this situation? Do I take the ball or stay with the post play? In 2-person, I think you ask the same question and I think the answer is to take the ball.

I agree with the double fouls, and it's great to use when the players won't listen to you. I am more in favor of communicating in this area of coverage. If I can get out of there with just telling them, hands off!, don't hold!, don't push!, I don't have to penalize or slow the game up with fouls. Of course, if I mix in a holding foul right after I verbalize very loudly don't hold, I got everybody attention now and from that point on, when I say hands off! You see the hands go straight up in the air and then you know you got their attention. Play ball....

[JRutledge]

This is something I learned at camp this past summer. If you think you missed the first foul or you know you missed the first foul, miss the second foul (on purpose) and call the 3rd foul. I am not saying that is the right thing to do, but he told us to not call a cheap foul on the retaliator when the initiator started the contact. I have tried this and it worked rather well sometimes.

Also you can use dead ball opportunities to talk to the players and let them know you are watching. You can also use your voice during live ball to let the players know you are watching. I typically say things like "EASY EASY EASY" or "HANDS HANDS." If that does not work I put air in the whistle and that will get the ultimate message. Call a couple of quick and cheap off ball fouls on these players and it will stop one way or another. Either the coach will have to take out the player from the game or the players will adjust.

BTW, I am not a huge fan of the double foul like I was early in my career. Penalize the right player, someone fouled first.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Not saying I agree or disagree, but....

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you think you missed the first foul or you know you missed the first foul, miss the second foul (on purpose) and call the 3rd foul. it worked rather well sometimes.

So you let a player get away with something and this approach works (rather well) for you, but only sometimes?

So other times it has worked only "ok", "passable"??

Let me pause for a sec...

Sometimes ... do you mean less than most times?

What if this retaliation (purposely missed second foul) is more severe than the instigating contact? Do you call it? Do you ignore it? If you call it, is the bar now not set somewhere that you don't like it?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Call a couple of quick and cheap off ball fouls on these players and it will stop one way or another. Either the coach will have to take out the player from the game or the players will adjust.

So above you said to let contact go, possibly significant, and here you're saying to call ticky tack fouls?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

BTW, I am not a huge fan of the double foul like I was early in my career. Penalize the right player, someone fouled first.

Maybe the NFHS doesn't feel this way. If they did, one could argue that there is no need for a double foul. If there is jostling that is illegal and so near each other in time, ding 'em both. That tells them that can't initiate this contact, nor retaliate.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Not saying I agree or disagree, but....

So you let a player get away with something and this approach works (rather well) for you, but only sometimes?

So other times it has worked only "ok", "passable"??

Let me pause for a sec...

Sometimes ... do you mean less than most times?

I think it was a little early in the morning for you. You really are reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the statement.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What if this retaliation (purposely missed second foul) is more severe than the instigating contact? Do you call it? Do you ignore it? If you call it, is the bar now not set somewhere that you don't like it?

Yeah, it is a little too early for you.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

So above you said to let contact go, possibly significant, and here you're saying to call ticky tack fouls?

I did not use the term “ticky tack,” you did. A "cheap" foul in my terminology is a foul committed by a player that should not have taken place on the player's part. In other words the player committed a foul that was basically dumb and unnecessary. I hear a lot of coaches use this term and it is not a criticism about the officials rather than a criticism of the player for doing something they should not do.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Maybe the NFHS doesn't feel this way. If they did, one could argue that there is no need for a double foul. If there is jostling that is illegal and so near each other in time, ding 'em both. That tells them that can't initiate this contact, nor retaliate.

It is not always about the NF. I do not work for the NF, but I do work for people that want certain things called and other things avoided. I think calling a double foul is more of a cop out because one of the players did something first. Work hard to get the first action or talk players out of behavior that might get a foul called on them. Also in my opinion we let the offensive player do just about anything and we do not call a thing on them. If you call a foul on an offensive player that pushed and held to keep the defender in a certain place, that sends a bigger message from my point of view.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think it was a little early in the morning for you. You really are reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the statement.

Yeah, it is a little too early for you.

I did not use the term “ticky tack,” you did. A "cheap" foul in my terminology is a foul committed by a player that should not have taken place on the player's part. In other words the player committed a foul that was basically dumb and unnecessary. I hear a lot of coaches use this term and it is not a criticism about the officials rather than a criticism of the player for doing something they should not do.

It is not always about the NF. I do not work for the NF, but I do work for people that want certain things called and other things avoided. I think calling a double foul is more of a cop out because one of the players did something first. Work hard to get the first action or talk players out of behavior that might get a foul called on them. Also in my opinion we let the offensive player do just about anything and we do not call a thing on them. If you call a foul on an offensive player that pushed and held to keep the defender in a certain place, that sends a bigger message from my point of view.

Peace

Curious: what else does the NFHS say we should know that you have decided warrants little to no enforcement?

If all your years of officiating (and I know you referee a lot), you have never had a situation where a double foul was the right thing to do? Do you have these hawk eyes that can tell that one foul happened so little before another?

I think it's a cop out to not call a double when it's time for one. Learn when to use it, then use it. The players will adapt - both of them!

[rainmaker]

There are a number of different issues here.

First of all, I think we all need to keep respecting the differences in our various associations and affiliations. The OP asked a question, then got several different answers some of whom specified a variety of authorities. If the OP will specify their affiliation, we can start to narrow down what would be an appropriate answer. Was the game FIBA? NFHS? NCAA-W or NCAA-M?

Okay, there aren't a lot of different issues, just the one.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

There are a number of different issues here.

First of all, I think we all need to keep respecting the differences in our various associations and affiliations. The OP asked a question, then got several different answers some of whom specified a variety of authorities. If the OP will specify their affiliation, we can start to narrow down what would be an appropriate answer. Was the game FIBA? NFHS? NCAA-W or NCAA-M?

...and the difference is what again...?

Whenever an interesting sitch is posted the first thing I think is "hmmm....how does that apply to the universe *I* live in?" After I figure that my next thought is "what's for lunch?".

I'm really not that interested in helping the poster figure out his own particular universe.

I know, I'm an incurious non-inclusive trog who refuses to accept the differences between us... :shrug:

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I know, I'm an incurious non-inclusive trog who refuses to accept the differences between us.

Well, I certainly respect you for that.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, I certainly respect you for that.

Boids of a fethah...