So basically you're saying, regardless of how much of an advantage/disadvantage a foul (or incidental contact) creates to a team, you are only looking at it in terms of was that specific player advantaged or disadvantaged by that foul/contact/whatever?

And on that issue, the rules state very clearly what a hand check is, and near the end of the rulebook, it talks about how it is always a foul to have hands on the dribbler - even "touching" (sizing up, i believe it is called) is illegal. Why have something that the rules say is illegal, but you are told not to call? There is quite a contradiction there.

Well good
 

It doesn't matter how many have a rules set then a how to enforce it. The bottom line is basketball does so do it. End of story.

So if you have a rule that says "You can't do this", and a official manual that says "Don't do anything about it", you let it go? Why have the rule in the first place? Just get rid of it.

Besides - No one has addressed the situation I posted near the bottom of page 1 - the one where the kids legs were taken out, but the pass went to a teammate who scored. Advantage or foul?

I'd have to be there. If it were a rough game where players were being overly physical I'd probably be quick on my whistle. If the game is flowing pretty well and this was just a one-time occurrence then I might let it go if I can see that the ball is going to a wide open teammate for a lay-up.

It's not black-and-white.

I did not use the word "only." I said that the rules support a usage of "advantage/disadvantage" in the language. Now the exact words may not be used, but the rules say if normal movements are not hindered, then it cannot be a foul. Of course I might consider other factors when making foul calls, but I do not like to make a habit of calling fouls that have no advantage/disadvantage involved.

Also I cannot speak for what soccer does and how the rules are written. It might be that soccer has an entire section on this issue. I agree basketball does not, have a lot written about this, but it is covered.

Peace

Wrong, the rules do address, specifically, advantage/disadvantage. Look up the definition of "incidental contact." Contact which does not create an advantage should be ruled incidental.

Editing to add: I don't have the rule book here, but after reading more posts, I remember the phrasing may not be exact. However, rather than stating "advantage," it actually defines it as the hinderance of normal offensive or defensive movement.

Freshman boys game this year, A1 coming up the table-side sideline throws a pass across court to a wide open A2. Immediately after releasing the pass, B1 is closing in and shoves A1. I call the foul, and A's coach is asking for an intentional. When I decline, he tells me I should have let it go because I just cost his team a layup; and therefore rewarded B1 for poor defense. I let him vent, because he was right. One of the calls this year I'd like to have back.

How can it not be?

How can you have a rule that says "sometimes call it, sometimes don't"? This is more a case of you deciding whether to apply the rule, or whether to just ignore it. The rules are relatively black and white. The interpretations add some grey space, and the refs themselves muddy the waters even more with personal feelings, what kind of a game they're willing to call, the level of the players (um - don't remember there being anything in the rules changing them based on the level of play, by age or by skill), etc.

I guess I see it more like a card game. I don't think anyone would agree that just because I feel like it today, I'm going to allow people in blackjack to count a 2 as 5, or go over 21 without busting. The rules define what you can and cannot do. As officials, we are there to keep the players safe and administer the rules. To pick and choose which rules we want to enforce on a particular day, or how we want to enforce them, makes it less of basketball and more "me-sketball". I don't remember seeing anything in the rules allowing officials to just decide what to call and what not to. There are some areas where we are asked to judge. We're not asked to judge things like 3 seconds - we're asked to call them. We're not asked to judge whether a bear hug from behind is intentional - we're asked to call it intentional. We are asked to judge some things - but some things we're not, and people just do.

I guess it comes down to - if we have rules, why don't we just follow them and be done with it?

Your situation is very vague. How were A1's legs taken out? Was it a diliberate trip? was he tackeled? Did A1 and B1 just get tangled up as they were moving up court? Snaqwell hits the mark with 4-27. If it was a foul on B1 per rules and not just incidental, Whistle, only dead ball issues remain......

Not incidental. I guess I should have put that in as a more specific detail. I'm thinking soccer again - there was a clear "foul", but the fouled team maintained possession of the ball. But in soccer, you acknolwedge the foul, but don't call it.

So in this case, you'd call it every time, even if there was no bonus, and the team that was just fouled (and made the basket) would have been up one with the basket with no time left on the clock? (but now they lose?)

What about with lots of time and a big score differential?

Comes back to "How can you call it different at different points in the game?" - the rules either say to call it ot not to. That's what I'm asking. Do the rules support a call which is advantageous to the team, but not to the player? (Obviously, the player was fouled, but it was to the team's advantage to keep playing - this is the situation).

Some people call this game management - i feel it is an excuse not to call things because you don't want to call them, for whatever reason.

Perhaps this is where I fall short. If I see a foul, I call it. I am not concerned with what might be if I dont. In your previous case, if the foul is not called perhaps A2 misses the layup or is fouled in the process of the layup. There are alot of what ifs.... If it is a foul, call it. If this is your point, good. But there are judgement calls that must be made by the official at that split second in an attempt to uphold the "intent" of the rules and the rules themselves. I believe most will do their best to be "consistent" throughout the game and not be concerned with score, etc. Officials are the only impartial people at the game.

Well David, you continue to do it your way. You asked a question and several folks have said why they do things the way they do. You are not going to change anyone's philosophy. Have you had this conversation with any of your D1 colleagues and/or mentors? I have. And what they tell me are not the same things that you are saying here.

So what exactly are you hoping to gain from this conversation? Are you interested in other people's philosophies or do you just want to argue?

Here's the thing. If A1 makes the pass before getting tripped and it gets to A2 who is wide open, then which normal offensive movements were hindered? If none, then it's not a foul. It's a judgment call, that's what allows us to call it if the game is getting a bit rough. Sometimes, "game management" concerns would lead you to call a foul for contact in which the advantage gained is minimal.
Yup, they are. If there's no hinderance of offensive movement, there's no foul. It's the same concept for when a 90 lb point guard drives into the paint and runs into a 200 lb center and falls to the floor. There's not really an offensive foul here. Okay, you go ref a 5th grade boys game and call every travel and double dribble you see. Work on picking up the pivot foot.

And fouls are the things we are supposed to judge; every time. Yes, even the bear hug. If he's reaching for the ball, you going to call that an intentional just because it looks like a bear hug?

SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT
Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.

ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.


The key word is hinder...if A1 can make the pass for the lay up, then the contact didn't hinder A1, so it isn't a foul, it is incidental contact.

There is your advantage/disadvantage in the rule book.

We do the same thing in basketball; we just don't have a "play on" signal.