He wanted a foul
 

In the last minute of men's rec game. Close game most of the contest but now 6 points apart.

Player gets a fast break. Defender reaches in, makes contact but dribbler has no change in forward motion or dribble. I called no foul. This happens twice and defender looks to me both time and wonders why I didn't call a foul.

I realize the strategic importance a foul can have in a game, but I wouldn't have called a foul here earlier in the game.

Or maybe I should? I'll admit to still be learning.

Rita

Good job.

Strategic fouling is part of the game and some adjustment must be made by the officials when it is clear teams are needing to foul to stop the clock and trade FTs for possessions.

We need to get the first contact that could be a foul, to keep from having the team use harder contact to get the foul called...sometimes that contact wouldn't have been a foul earlier in the game.

Pre Game
 

I agree. This is part of my pregame:

End of game strategic fouls: If the winning team is just holding the ball and is willing to take the free throws, then let’s call the foul immediately, so the ballhandler doesn’t get hit harder to draw a whistle.

I agree, but it's clearly not the case in the OP. The ball handler continued through on a fast break. This is clearly a case where the contact needs to be ignored. If B1 decides to get brutal, you can't blame the officials for following the rules and being consistent.

So what's new? The SOP in wreck games is that the ball handler thinks all contact with him, no matter how minor, is a foul.

Rita:

I have no problem with the concept that if it isn't foul in the first thirty second of the game, it isn't a foul in the last thirty seconds of the game. But my question to you is: What kind of contact was B1 making on the dribbler A1? I agree that B1 is allowed to attacl the and can "reach in" to attack the ball and even steal the ball from the ball handler, but I am confused as to what type of contact occured. Could you please elaborate more about B1's actions? Thank you.

MTD, Sr.

You have to strike the balance between giving the defense the foul so that they don't "get more rough" and taking away an easy lay-up. In the OP, if it's not enough contact to stop the fast break, it's not enough to call it. If it's clearly for the purposes of taking away the easy fast break, it might be intentional, just as it might have been if the same contact had happened earlier in the game.

IOW, good job, Rita!

I think it was the defender that wanted the foul call.

I agree with this. The ballhandler was not simply willing to take the foul and get his free throws. So we let him make his play.