force out call ?
 

In the Ky v Louisville NCAA game today, a L player made a move to the baseline and a K defensive man was moving with him. The L player last touched the ball as it went out of bounds.

The ball went out of bounds. According to the announcers (Billy Packer) the official called "force out" and awarded the ball to Louisville.

No foul was called.

I thought that it was either a foul or out of bounds. No such call as "force out" at this level.

Now in my backyard as a kid, we had "force out"s.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Yup, Billy Packer is an idiot. You cannot take any statement that he makes re: rules seriously. Ever. He is noted for not knowing the rules. The call that was made was probably an out-of-bounds call, as you said, but off the Kentucky player.

______________________
'Nuf said.

Pay no attention to anything that the idiot known as Packer says.

I truely believe that the "force out" is an employed, accepted and unspoken [by others] method of apology for a missed push that that wasn't enough to call (as a foul), but still caused the offense to lose the ball.

The force-out was an old rule from the NBA. They did away with it several years ago. That is why you have heard of it. As others have said Packer is an idiot, but additionally the little toad is also d@mn old. Therefore, he was around during the days when the NBA force-out rule was in effect. He just never bothered to learn that it no longer exists.

Billy Packer = Mute Button!

mick answered the question correctly
 

The answer to your question Mr. bbcowboy is that this particular situation, which is very common, is almost routinely miscalled (at least in the PAC-10). The rules call for either a change of possession or a foul. Invariably, neither is called.

Billy Packer was perhaps describing the extra-legal resolution of the situation as "forced-out" but he's not responsible for enforcing the rule. Some posters in this forum just don't like Billy Packer, that's all.

BTTB

:cool:

That's true. I don't like Billy Packer.

It's true that there's no such thing as a forceout.

Finally, it's also true that there are a lot of moronic fans who don't understand officiating, the rules or how to apply them.

Insert picture of hammer hitting nail on head....

You're response would imply that some posters here do like Billy Packer. I wouldn't put money on that ;)

I think what he's implying is that, for once, Packer maybe got it right, and that people on this board would rather slam their hand in a car door than admit that.

Now that's a little harsh. The choice wouldn't be quite so easy as you imply. ;)

What are your credentials to state that PAC10 officials routinely and invariably miscall this play?

1) NCAA D1 official?
2) Fanboy who has never officiated a game in his life?

I await your response. From your previous posts however, until then I think that I'll go with Door #2.

Are you serious? Mr. Packer was correct when he said the official called a "force-out"? The official may have booted the call or may have given the ball back to A1 b/c he missed the foul or didn't want to call a foul. But that offiicial did not call a "force out", I guarantee you that.

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

There's a <b>tiny</b> guy officiating up in <b>your</b> neighbourhood too. About 6'14" and 525#. Wears a tutu when he officiates. You ever meet Larks?:D

Seriously - If you are refereeing by the advantage/disadvantage method almost all of us claim to prescribe to - the ball went out of bounds so there is an advantage/disadvantage situation - so you have to call the foul our give the ball to the team truly entitiled to it or you are not using advantage/disadvantage as we are taught. :confused:

To me that means the team that didn't touch it last. Do you mean something else by that statement? :confused:

I mean that if red touched it last and it went OOB then white gets the ball - do not give it back to red because he went OOB because of contact that wasn't enough for you to call - that is a contradiction of what you just had happen in froont of you.

See the discussion of "saving a foul" in the other posts in this thread. I'm not advocating this, just acknowledging that it exists.

I've read them, I just don't agree with them. If it's not enough to call the foul, then I'm not going to distort the rules (like giving an OOB ball back to the team that's not entitled). Your post also mentioned deliberately passing off a foul onto someone else instead of the star player. I'm not even going there.

Minor contact on a passer that would kill a fast break and take away the significant advantage of the offense? Yeah, that I would probably let go. Even by rule you're allowed to disregard an obvious non-contact violation of the defense that is committed solely to take away the other team's obvious advantage, ie: a defender purposely leaving the court to kill the play.
Although this sitch entails minor contact, I probably wouldn't call it if I don't think it puts the offending player at a disadvantage.

1)To me advantage/disadvantage does apply when you give the ball to a team out of bounds when bumped slightly.

2)Team throws ball in, player lifts foot up slightly before putting ball down to dribble in own backcourt with no press and no defensive player in sight. If you call a travel there, you are just bogging down the game on a useless call.

3)Player receives an inbounds pass, defense very lightly bumps into him not affecting the player at all. I would rather pass on the slight foul and allow the offensive player to work inside since he has the ball where he wanted the ball in the first place.

1) To me, you're completely wrong and you're also making up your own rules. May I suggest that you read POE 5A on p69 of this year's NFHS rule book. The FED rulesmakers put this POE in with officials like you in mind.

2) Interesting. Do you also advocate also not calling a dribbler OOB if he steps on a sideline with no pressure too? That's another useless call, isn't it? Isn't that exactly the same type of situation----> a violation with no one around? Or if you disagree, does that mean that you advocate picking and choosing what violations you might feel like calling at any particular time during a game?

3) I would certainly hope that you would pass on that contact and not call it a foul. Contact that doesn't affect a player isn't a foul. Says so right in NFHS rule 4-27-3--<i>"Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered <b>incidental</b>".</i>

I guess I'm not half as good a referee as I thought I was!

Maybe I need to go back to the YMCA games!

I just like to try and get a flow going to a game. I don't like to be over-officious which to me is completely going by the book every time, all the time. I cannot call a foul on a passer when I can tell the pass is going to a wide open teammate for a layup (even though technically it is a foul). If a player barely touches the line throwing the ball in after an opponent's basket with no backcourt pressure.....it isn't that big a deal to ignore it (if he steps on it or in the court..call it...use common sense). stuff like that. Am I that wrong in thinking that way? No one that assigns my games have ever had a problem with the way I officiate....always get a high ranking....so I must be doing something right. Maybe I just don't translate on the computer well......

I stick to the rules. I enforce the game. I manage the game. I keep it fair,.. try not to let anyone get hurt. Not every foul is a foul in my opinion and different games call for different styles of officiating. Some players can bang a little, some can't. Advantage/disadvantage is important isn't it?

1) Ah, yes. The "game interrupter" excuse. Very, very familiar tactic. Ignoring a foul and making a call that has absolutely <b>no</b> rules basis to justify it is keeping the game flowing. Sorry, somehow I can't agree with that. If you stop the flow to call whatever you're calling to give the ball back to the dribbler, then you're also stopping the flow from flowing if you make the <b>right</b> call-->a foul. Btw, exactly <b>what</b> are you calling to give the ball back to the dribbler? It isn't a violation. It isn't a foul. It isn't defined anywhere in any rule book that I know of. What the heck is it?

2) Yup, I'd ignore a thrower touching the line too. It isn't a violation and it never has been a violation. As for calling a violation on a thrower stepping <b>on</b> the court, I agree with you that it should be called. I just want an explanation from you why you would call that violation but you would ignore a dribbler violating by stepping out of bounds after being bumped. What criteria do you use to pick and choose what violations should be called and which ones should be ignored?

3) It's <b>always</b> a great idea to stick to the rules. I agree with that statement completely. However...what rule are you sticking to that lets you give the ball back to the dribbler on a force-out?

4) Yes, advantage/disadvantage is important. It also has got absolutely nothing to do with an official who decides he's going to ignore the rule book and make up his own rules.

I am hanging myself out on this one but I did this the other night in a boys varsity game. I was lead. A1 dribbled down the lane and was blocked by B1. I ignored the contact (why, I really have NO idea). Anyway, the ball flies out of A1's hand and out of bounds. I called "A". I will admit that I though ahead about it. There were many players in the key so I knew I had the best view of it. We were right in front of A's bench so I knew Coach B could not really say anything and, if he did, I could explain it since I had a better angle. I know this is not right but A1 was clearly blocked and I clearly missed it so I clearly blew two in a row and gave the ball back to A. The last thing about it was A was down by about 20 at the time. I am not sure if I would do this in a close game and hopefully I will get the block right next time. In the end, no one said anything, we played on, and I am not sure if anyone really caught it except for me. I was evaluated that night and my evaluator didn't even mention it in the write up. Not that that matters or changes it but that's what I did, right or wrong (probably wrong).

As far as this post goes, does anyone know how many fouls the defensive player had on him? I am not a D1 official but I have been told that at that level these folks are very in tune with things like that. I agree with Mick that he probably called the OOB to ignore the foul, especially if the defensive player had 3 or 4 fouls. Just curious.

This happens all the time, at all levels of basketball.

When we determine that contact is onot a foul it is done because there was no advantage gained or it did not disrupt the action on the floor.
If the contact cuases the player to go down or lose control of the ball then there is advantage gained because another violation or turnover has occured that could result in the lose of the ball for that team.
Example - the dreaded player contact/or tangling of feet that results in the dribbler staggering down the floor for a couple of seconds but then goes down as a result of that contact and you end up making the call two or three seconds after the contact. Do you let that player go down and just give them back the ball?
What was different in this situation as described. If the contact cuased the ball to go out of bounds and as a result of that contact advantage is gained (they get the ball) you have to call the foul, I see no other choice.

Ah, that's easy !
The difference is that it is easier to hide an out-of-bounds call cuz the line is so close. :)

Dave30,

Jurassic doesn't understand what common sense officiating is, he backs every TINY thing he does and says by the rulebook and thinks it is ok and in fact it is, he can never be told he is completely and utterly wrong (like he does to those common sense officials on the forum day in and day out) if he uses the rulebook for everything.

Here is a good story in which I did the right thing by rule but didn't employ common sense officiating like I should have and screwed a team over or so I thought and my crew thought and my supervisor thought.

It is a 2 point ball game with team B down and Team A throwing the ball in having to go the length of the floor with about 7.2 left in the game. As Team A is trying to inbound I am at C opposite in a pressing situation by Team B. A3 being guarded by B3 near the division line runs backward like he is going for the long pass and then starts to run up toward the ball, B3 grabs him and I call an INTENTIONAL FOUL. By rule I am correct in doing so because it was a foul that kept the clock from running, but it was wrong in common sense officiating. The kid didn't hug him because they knew he was the worse free throw shooter or foul him maliciously. My supervisor even got onto me after the game and as soon as he did or even before he did I knew I had screwed up.

Dave30 I understand exactly what you are trying to say and agree with you but if you don't go by the rule book on this forum, you will inevitably get eaten up by the shark(s).

P.S. If a kid loses the ball because of a bump and it goes off of that kid I have a foul, regardless of how slight. I'm not sacrificing a missed OOB call to "save a foul", but on that note never say never. I'm sure there will be a time or have been times where I didn't think the bump was sufficient enough for him to lose control or I just know from watching that the kid was a bad dribbler and shouldn't have been dribbling in the first place.

I'll fully admit I have used the "save a foul" technique on occasion when I know most people have no idea who the ball went out on. I also must admit that it caused me some trouble just a couple of weeks ago. We had a girl's double header and during the JV game I was L under the V basket. A V girl went to the hoop and got bumped by H defender. It should have been called, but H was clearly outmatched and we already had plenty of fouls on them. After the bump the ball went out of bounds and unfortunately I already made up my mind that I was going to "save a foul" and give the ball to V. As I hit my whistle and announce that it's V ball. What was bad and caused me problems was that V ended up holding the ball out of bounds on the play. Anyway, the whole place goes nuts, the coach was understandably upset. After V scores and we start down to the other end, the H coach follows me up the court gesturing and telling me how "horrible" that call was. Yes, I threw the T. Had he sat while complaining I would have let him go, but since he made a public circus out of it, I took care of him. Long story short, the "saving a foul" cost me some credibility at one school and I had to work my butt off in the V game to try to get it back. I'm throwing that one out of my bag of tricks.

Um, no. Jurassic thinks that officials shouldn't make up and apply their very own personal rules, mechanics and philosophies and try to disguise their doing so by labelling them "common sense". Jurassic also thinks that common sense really is officials who do know the rules deciding whether to apply those <b>existing</b> rules, mechanics and philosophies. Iow, Jurassic thinks that it might be a very good idea if officials try to learn the rules <b>first</b> before they decide how to apply them.

And....Jurassic thinks that it's truly sad that some officials just don't know or understand the difference.

Sorry, but I disagree that this was the correct call by rule.

IMO, the wording in the rule should be read as, "...designed *only* to keep the clock from starting..."

As I read your description, B3 was making a "basketball play" and the common foul was the correct call.

You said it better than I did....."common sense officiating!" I just can't explain myself well......

Tell me how you can stick completely by the book on a monday night and do four seventh grade games and get home before midnight!!! Does common sense officiating make sense there?.....I think so!

If a player has four fouls late in the game....do you ever let a touch foul go that you may have called earlier in the game? If one player has four fouls and another doesn't and there is a close play where you could give a foul to one or more players....do you lean towards not fouling the player out?

Unfortunately, neither of you understands what "common sense officiating" actually means.

It refers to knowing how and when to apply <b>existing</b> rules. It <b>never</b> means making up your <b>own</b> rules.

I don't make up rules. I can't explain it, but sometimes you can "bend" a rule just a little bit to make it a better game. I don't know how to explain it, but it is done at every level of basketball and it can be done without making up your own rules. Here is another one. IF a player falls down in the lane on offense.....do you wait until he gets up to give him a chance to get out? Or do you call 3 seconds? It's in the rulebook.....it should be 3 seconds right? But you just don't call it on a guy who falls down......common sense....right?

What if a girl is shooting a free throw and a teammate's toe is about an inch over the line into an opponent's space and she makes the shot......do you blow the whistle and call a lane violation? She broke the rule.....if you go by the book, you wipe out the free throw......I would motion to her and say quietly "watch your feet" before I would call a violation.

What if a 7th grade girl who is too small to shoot free throws finally makes one but goes about 2 inches over the line.....do you wipe it out?

You have to make decisions like this constantly and you can't always go strictly by the book in my opinion.

I'd be uncomfortable reffing with a partner whose outlook was such as that. If a girl is lined up on the line during a free throw, correct it before administering the throw. Kids have to learn to play by the rules. They will do the same thing next week and wonder why it got called. If you were reffing football and you knew the running back had never scored before, would you award him a touchdown if he got "close enough" to the endzone?

And back to this "force-out" nonsense. How hard does a foul have to be to be a foul, guys? How do you measure the contact, in psi? For goodness sake, if B's contact forced A out, call the foul. Don't make up an out-of-bounds-on-B call. I've seen it, it was pretty obvious, and to me that just hurts our credibility. Because it WILL inevitably happen in front of B's bench, and they will all know that B NEVER touched the ball! And don't say, "I'd just tell the coach that I saved his player a foul," because then he KNOWS you're making your s--t up as you go along!

Jmo, Dave, but if you can't explain it, you shouldn't be <b>doing</b> it.

If you wouldn't have called the "touch foul" early in the game, the player would only have three, and you wouldn't have to make this tough decision late in the game.

I stand corrected many times over!

I think this is the one post where I've seen the most intelligence ever on this website.

Billy Packer is a moron!

Truer words have never been spoken!