Advantage/Disadvantage

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Explain to me what justifies your decision to not call things because you "don't want to" or "don't feel its justified", even though the rules say you should.

Your basic premise is completely wrong from the git-go. The rules do NOT say that you should call a foul just because there is contact. A foul, by rules definition, is illegal contact with an opponent. It is always up to the calling official on each and every play to judge whether the contact is legal or illegal. The rules book tries to help our judgment skills by giving us examples of legal and illegal contact.

All you've been saying is that contact is illegal according to your judgment. Other officials obviously may judge differently, using their judgment.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Your basic premise is completely wrong from the git-go. The rules do NOT say that you should call a foul just because there is contact. A foul, by rules definition, is illegal contact with an opponent. It is always up to the calling official on each and every play to judge whether the contact is legal or illegal. The rules book tries to help our judgment skills by giving us examples of legal and illegal contact.

All you've been saying is that contact is illegal according to your judgment. Other officials obviously may judge differently, using their judgment.

And I am not saying to call EVERY contact as a foul. I'm saying that what people judge to be not a foul as incidental contact isn't, in many cases - it's a case of the ref not wanting to call that foul.

If I have my hand on the hip of a dribbler, and I'm attempting to guide his motion, and do so, i'm fouling according to the rules. Do most refs call this as a hand check? No - most would look for more than a slight effect - applying that judgement. What if they shove? What if they get a really nice block, but foul the player after the block? Many would say "oh well, it was a nice block, i'm not calling the foul afterwards because it looked so nice"- they may not say that, but that's the explanation most give if you ask them afterwards why they didn't call it.

I understand the thing about not calling things which are incidental. I think we're judging way too many things as incidental.

And we're ignoring things which are blank and white. There are officials who won't make a 3 seconds call, and are proud of that fact. Where in the rules does it say we should ignore that? It says when to and when not to call it. No judgement involved.

In my original example (well, a few posts in) - a player has his legs taken out from under him. It is clearly a foul - B ran into A trying to steal the ball, interfere with a pass, etc - but he clearly initiated contact which was NOT incidental. A2 gets the pass and puts it in the basket. Do we call the original foul, or allow the basket to stand? Do the rules support ignoring fouls like that (or considering them an application of "advantage"), if the team as a whole benefits? It's a yes or no question. In soccer, (and yes, I know it is a different sport) - we acknowledge a foul - it was a foul, and we specifically noted it as such by applying advantage - and allow play to continue even though there was a clear foul. I'm saying - do we do the same thing in basketball, but not "acknowledge" the foul? You're saying it isn't a foul. I'm saying it is - do we ignore it in favor of the advantage gained by the team by completing the pass and making the basket, or call the foul?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

In my original example (well, a few posts in) - a player has his legs taken out from under him. It is clearly a foul - B ran into A trying to steal the ball, interfere with a pass, etc - but he clearly initiated contact which was NOT incidental. A2 gets the pass and puts it in the basket. Do we call the original foul, or allow the basket to stand? Do the rules support ignoring fouls like that (or considering them an application of "advantage"), if the team as a whole benefits? It's a yes or no question. In soccer, (and yes, I know it is a different sport) - we acknowledge a foul - it was a foul, and we specifically noted it as such by applying advantage - and allow play to continue even though there was a clear foul. I'm saying - do we do the same thing in basketball, but not "acknowledge" the foul? You're saying it isn't a foul. I'm saying it is - do we ignore it in favor of the advantage gained by the team by completing the pass and making the basket, or call the foul?

It’s only a foul, according to rule 4-27-3, if it hinders the player from making normal offensive or defensive movements. He made the pass as he intended, so tell me which offensive movements were hindered?

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It’s only a foul, according to rule 4-27-3, if it hinders the player from making normal offensive or defensive movements. He made the pass as he intended, so tell me which offensive movements were hindered?

So you would not call this as a foul, even though the player ended up on the floor, maybe bleeding? You would say this is incidental, by the rules? Just a simple yes or no.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

So you would not call this as a foul, even though the player ended up on the floor, maybe bleeding? You would say this is incidental, by the rules? Just a simple yes or no.

Your question has a maybe, so does my answer. If it’s a train wreck, I’ll call the foul. If it’s a bump that knocks the passer in a new direction, I’m likely to pass. My point is that there has to be some hindrance from normal offensive or defensive movements to constitute a foul. It takes judgment to decide this, as it’s not always black and white. If a player is on the floor, then I think he’s probably been hindered. I say probably, because if the time on the clock is so low that the passer is done for the game after making this pass, I might pass on the contact to let the shooter get his shot; unless it’s an intentional foul.
I don’t want the defense to be advantaged by this

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

So you would not call this as a foul, even though the player ended up on the floor, maybe bleeding? You would say this is incidental, by the rules? Just a simple yes or no.

In a game will skilled players, where A1 passes to a wide open and undefended A2 heading to the basket for a sure 2 points, I have NO foul unless it is intentional or flagrant....even if the player ended up on the floor...or even bleeding.

Two points on the board is ALWAYS worth more than a foul.

At lower levels or with less skilled players, I'd call the foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

And I am not saying to call EVERY contact as a foul. I'm saying that what people judge to be not a foul as incidental contact isn't, in many cases - it's a case of the ref not wanting to call that foul.

And I'm saying that your statement above is complete and utter nonsense. You're trying to force your own personal opinion on what constitutes a foul on all other officials. Saying that a foul didn't get called because a official didn't want to call it just might tie for the stoopidest post ever made on this forum. All you're doing now is dumping on an official who simply judged a play differently than you. The ref didn't call a foul because he didn't the judge the play to BE a foul. Iow, there was NO illegal contact according to that official's judgment. That's how the game is officiated. Just because David Rinkeii disagrees with a judgment call made by an official sureashell doesn't automatically make that official wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

If I have my hand on the hip of a dribbler, and I'm attempting to guide his motion, and do so, i'm fouling according to the rules. Do most refs call this as a hand check? No - most would look for more than a slight effect - applying that judgement. What if they shove?

Just because the hand is there and they're attempting to direct the player doesn't mean they're successful at it.

Originally Posted by drinkeii

And we're ignoring things which are blank and white. There are officials who won't make a 3 seconds call, and are proud of that fact. Where in the rules does it say we should ignore that? It says when to and when not to call it. No judgement involved.

There are some people that need every permutation and combination of possible event put down on paper. Unfortuately, the rulebook is writtent to be a small and compact as possible because it leads to a better understanding by MOST people. Every authority on the matter is fully consistent on the intent and purpose of the 3 seconds rule and how it is expected to be called. Not everything about officiating a game is written in the rulebook.

Originally Posted by drinkeii

In my original example (well, a few posts in) - a player has his legs taken out from under him. It is clearly a foul - B ran into A trying to steal the ball, interfere with a pass, etc - but he clearly initiated contact which was NOT incidental. A2 gets the pass and puts it in the basket. Do we call the original foul, or allow the basket to stand? Do the rules support ignoring fouls like that (or considering them an application of "advantage"), if the team as a whole benefits? It's a yes or no question.

Just because the contact is obvious and/or substantial doesn't mean that it is a foul. It is, by definition, incidental if the official judges that team A was not disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by drinkeii

In soccer, (and yes, I know it is a different sport) - we acknowledge a foul - it was a foul, and we specifically noted it as such by applying advantage - and allow play to continue even though there was a clear foul. I'm saying - do we do the same thing in basketball, but not "acknowledge" the foul? You're saying it isn't a foul. I'm saying it is - do we ignore it in favor of the advantage gained by the team by completing the pass and making the basket, or call the foul?

It is fundamentally different than soccer...where contact is clearly defined as always a foul but is only called and penalized based on advantage.