Giving the ball back to the offense because the contact is not sufficient to call a foul is a force-out. We don't call it that anymore because it's no longer in the rules. But that's what it is.

Just a couple of silly questions here? -:rolleyes:

If the contact was enough to cause the player to go OOB - would that not be sufficient enough to be a foul? :confused:
or
If the contact was sufficient enough to cause the player to lose control of the ball OOB would that not be a foul? :confused:

This contact seems suffucient enough to have affected the play - so if you choose to give the ball back to the team responsible for the ball being OOB (last touch) then you are setting aside a rule. :eek:

I understand where the other comments are coming from light contact is not always called - however we rule it incedental because it has no real effect on the play this does not seem to be the case here.

The way I envision it is - reward good defense and punish bad defense:

a) Good defense - A out of bounds, should of pulled up, ball going the other way to B

b) bad defense - push, block, hand check, etc, etc on B

In the couple of camps I've been to I've never been exposed to the "force-out" concept.

But it may be a regional thing.

The official did not call a FORCE OUT!!!

...And that is what Scrapper1 noted.
It isn't verbalized, ...yet it is what it is.

We know that sometimes officials will call the ball OOB off of B1 when A1 was the last to touch the ball because B1 made contact with A1. The theory seems to be that a foul call doesn't make the game better, since the result is basically the same: A gets the ball for an inbounds play. This is in line of the philosophy many officials have of let the players decide the game. Other examples of this include not calling the 5th foul on star players when there is another player near enough to charge with the foul, not calling palming violations when there is no defensive pressure, not calling 3 second violations until 5 or 6 seconds have passed, etc.

However, B's team foul count and B1's player foul count are not increased. In essence, this is giving an unfair advantage to B. Officials should call the foul and not worry about "letting the player slide". He's earned his foul by pushing A1 OOB; give it to him.

I remember when the NBA's force-out call went away; there is no reason to revive it either in the NBA or especially in levels where it was never a rule in the first place.

I'm 99.9% sure that despite what the announcers THOUGHT was called, the official said the ball was out of bounds on UK. They first thought a foul was called then went with the "force out" logic. When I watched the offficial, I saw him point at the end line as if saying "out of bounds."

As Jurassic's old school-chum Bill once wrote, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

I guess I'm not following you on this one. Incidental contact happens all the time between dribbler/defender. If there is an interrupted dribble that goes OOB off A1's foot, it's B's ball. If contact is severe enough it's a foul. Call it the way it is.

OK, now you're really losing me. How do you let the players decide the game if you're intentionally not calling fouls on the player who committed the foul?

Guys - bottom line:

A. Billy Packer is an idiot
B. There's no such call as a force out
C. All of the above :cool:

I have been exposed to this philosophy of officiating.
Some local veterans have told me that when there is contact, but not hard enough to warrant a foul and the player loses the ball out of bounds, they simply give the ball back to that team. They do not call a foul; they just intentionally get the OOB call wrong. Many of them refer to it as "saving a foul."

I have decided over the last couple of years that I don't care for it.

Therefore, I will decide if the contact is sufficient for a foul, and if so, I'll call that. However, if I decide that there isn't a foul, I'm going to award the ball OOB to the team that was NOT the last to touch it.

It's not my job to "save fouls" for the players.

Bill also said it was a foul because there's no such thing as a force-out.

Just saying....

I thought it was an accepted practice to "save fouls". I do it often. I don't like to get in the bonus any earlier than necessary with a lot of "cheap" touch fouls. If the bump was very slight and the ball goes out of bounds...I'll "save a foul" almost every time. Just like allowing a tiny travel in the backcourt when a player is bringing the ball up unguarded....it keeps the game flowing. You "pass" on fouls all the time. For example a player runs into a passer starting a fastbreak.....you don't kill the fastbreak by calling a foul unless it is really hard contact. If a post player catches a pass in traffic while another player maybe had two hands on his back but the post player is big enough and strong enough to score....you "pass" on that foul...or give a basket and foul....

"A foul is a foul."....I can't referee that way.

1) Only with some officials. Other officials judge each act of contact separately and individually but try to be consistent with the level of contact allowed, advantage/disadvantage being a criteria also of course. I'm in the second group. I never worry about whether to call a foul or not. A foul is a foul. If it isn't a foul, naturally you don't call anything.

2) Do let <b>tiny</b> out-of-bounds go too? How about <b>tiny</b> backcourt violations? <b>Tiny</b> steps onto the court while throwing the ball in? <b>Tiny</b>.......? Do you ignore <b>all</b> tiny violations or just <b>some</b> tiny violations?

3) Passing on two-handed defense would pass you right out of varsity assignments in my neighbourhood. Basket and a foul...yes. No foul? Never.

So this guy would let a guy named TINY do just about anything he wanted?

"Tiny" happens to be 6'7" tall and goes about 265 lbs.:D