I'll give you what you want

[KCRef]

At a men's rec league last night we had a 3/4 court pass by A1 to A2 who caught the ball just inbounds near the sideline. B2 makes a little contact with A2, but enough to push him out (while A2 is holding the ball). My partner blows his whistle and says, "We're staying here, A's ball." The B team of course questions the call because A2 went out with the ball, but the ref is saying out on B2, who never touched the ball. My partner didn't like the complaining, so he baits them by saying, "What call do you want?" To which the B team replies, "B2 never even touched the ball, how could it be out on him?", which everyone in the gym knew to be true. With this comment, my partner yelled to the table, "OK, I've got a foul on B2," and then he administered the throw-in. This happened twice in this game against the same team.

Now, I know this is not right, not even in a men's rec league, but my question is, what do I say to B3 when he comes up to me and says, "That is not right. He can't do that," without hanging your partner out to dry?

After the game my partner did mention it to me and explained why he tried not to call the foul, and I told him that I personally would have called the push, to which he repeated how he didn't want to call a ticky-tac foul. I said OK.

[Nevadaref]

This is why I don't "save" fouls. There is no longer an NBA "force-out" rule.

This is either incidental contact and Team B's ball after the OOB violation by A2 or a pushing foul on B2 and thus Team A's ball.

Not all hard contact is a foul and just because someone is put at a disadvantage by minor contact doesn't make that a foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not all hard contact is a foul and just because someone is put at a disadvantage by minor contact doesn't make that a foul.

That part I'll disagree with. If contact does put someone at a disadvantage, it should be a foul. If no one gains or loses an advantage through contact, it shouldn't be a foul.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That part I'll disagree with. If contact does put someone at a disadvantage, it should be a foul. If no one gains or loses an advantage through contact, it shouldn't be a foul.

Unless of course it's legal contact. Legal contact is never a foul.

[Nevadaref]

JR,
I've had this discussion with numerous officials.

Here is my opinion:
There is a certain threshold that contact has to cross before it can be ajudged a foul. If the level of the contact is below that, then it isn't a foul. Period.

When the contact is above that level, then it may or may not be a foul. The official needs to NOW consider advantage/disadvantage to determine if a foul should be called.

The reverse process doesn't cut it for me. I argue that an official cannot say that just because someone gets slightly brushed and falls to the floor that the slight brush is a foul. If the player had maintained his position and that contact would not be called a foul, then it still should not be a foul just because the opponent fell down. One cannot see a disadvantage and then call a foul for some minor contact.

It is not right to penalize based upon the actions of the other player. Otherwise, flopping and exaggerating the severity of contact would be rewarded. The contact itself must be judged by itself first and then step two should be applied. If you don't have A, then you don't go to B.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JR,
I've had this discussion with numerous officials.

Here is my opinion:
There is a certain threshold that contact has to cross before it can be ajudged a foul. If the level of the contact is below that, then it isn't a foul. Period.

When the contact is above that level, then it may or may not be a foul. The official needs to NOW consider advantage/disadvantage to determine if a foul should be called.

The reverse process doesn't cut it for me. I argue that an official cannot say that just because someone gets slightly brushed and falls to the floor that the slight brush is a foul. If the player had maintained his position and that contact would not be called a foul, then it still should not be a foul just because the opponent fell down. One cannot see a disadvantage and then call a foul for some minor contact.

It is not right to penalize based upon the actions of the other player. Otherwise, flopping and exaggerating the severity of contact would be rewarded. The contact itself must be judged by itself first and then step two should be applied. If you don't have A, then you don't go to B.

IMO, there's a difference between contact causing a disadvantage, and a player acting as if contact caused a disadvantage. Making that distinction is why we get paid the big bucks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IMO, there's a difference between contact causing a disadvantage, and a player acting as if contact caused a disadvantage. Making that distinction is why we get paid the big bucks.

Exactly. And the severity of the contact isn't always a factor either. The fact that a disadvantage resulted from the contact is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Unless of course it's legal contact. Legal contact is never a foul.

True dat. As always, and related to the play being discussed, a judgement call.

[chartrusepengui]

One of the reasons we don't have "force outs" is because we do have fouls caused by contact that creates a disadvantage for a player - especially one with the ball. If minor contact caused the player to violate - blow the whistle and call the foul.

[tomegun]

Nevada, I'm trying to think this through. Do you believe in Rhythm, Speed, Balance and Quickness? That concept has nothing to do with the severity of contact and everything to do with how if effects a player.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Nevada, I'm trying to think this through. Do you believe in Rhythm, Speed, Balance and Quickness? That concept has nothing to do with the severity of contact and everything to do with how if effects a player.

I do, but I don't fully subscribe to the NBA philosophy.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

One of the reasons we don't have "force outs" is because we do have fouls caused by contact that creates a disadvantage for a player - especially one with the ball. If minor contact caused the player to violate - blow the whistle and call the foul.

This is the perfect example for me. Minor contact that results in violation is not always a foul for me.

Frequently, I will believe that the violating player should have been strong enough to play through that level of contact and that the defender shouldn't be penalized for it. I will blow the whistle and call the violation.

[tomegun]

I don't know. Regardless of the offensive player's strength, if the contact caused a violation it is probably enough to call a foul. You are putting the onus on the offensive player to be strong and letting the defender off the hook.

[chartrusepengui]

Yet, now you are going on how strong you believe a player should be and setting aside a rule aren't you? How do you determine how much is too much and how much is not enough consistently. Do you also take the physical size of a player in account. Can a small guy beat on a big guy more than a big guy can beat on a small guy? (or girl)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

Yet, now you are going on how strong you believe a player should be and setting aside a rule aren't you? How do you determine how much is too much and how much is not enough consistently. Do you also take the physical size of a player in account. Can a small guy beat on a big guy more than a big guy can beat on a small guy? (or girl)

Yes, but not setting aside a rule because not all contact is a foul by the rules.
Judgment.
Yes.
Yes.