Do foul counts constitute a good called game?

[jritchie]

what do you think?

By Ken Koester

Is that how were now judged? By foul totals? As I sat back and went over some of my games from last season on video, I couldn’t help but chuckle on some of the observations I had written down in my notes during the season.
I can still remember talking to a pair of officials after a high school game last season and the comments are still vivid in my mind. “Nine fouls per team, great game.” Now, of course I realize that a game with only 18 fouls probably had a nice flow, the players played and the coaches coached. But doesn’t it seem we officiate in a society now where the game is measured in terms in how close the foul differential was?
So in watching a game I had on tape from last season, I charted some of the calls. Home team had 25 fouls, visiting team had 16. Differential of nine fouls. Foul total in the first five minutes of the third quarter was 6-1. And you know what else, the home team also came out more aggressive and went on a 13-2 run after being down by eight at the half. I think the average person could effectively correlate the aggressive action to better results (albeit with more fouls). But I remember the coach pointing out the indifference in the foul total. I know I answered with a sarcastic remark indicating “Whatever the team was doing, it appears to be working.” I know, I know … such a remark is better left unsaid.
But it seems as though more and more officials translate a well-officiated game to one with fewer fouls and more importantly, similar foul totals. Obviously that can’t be the case. Officials can’t control how the team plays, how aggressive players might be, whether or not the ball goes on or what else might have gone on at school that day. I understand that coaches will consistently refer to the foul-total card when its not in their favor, but it seems to me that more and more officials are buying into that notion. If that’s the case, it’s certainly disturbing.
I’d argue that a well-officiated game would be one where all of the calls are made (regardless of the totals). Could be 12 to three or nine to eight, but if the officials got ‘em right, it shouldn’t really matter. Should it?
Written by Ken Koester, Referee associate editor.

[Jurassic Referee]

The players and the play determine the number of fouls being called. Officials don't act; they react.

[M&M Guy]

I think foul counts can be useful information about how a game has been called, but we should be very careful we don't generalize too much. JR's right, in that we should never officiate to foul counts, but just call the fouls the players commit. If the foul count is 9-8 for a half, does that mean we called a good half or game? Not necessarily, if one team was more aggressive defensively and got away with more contact than the other. What if both teams played a soft zone all half? Maybe 9-8 means we actually called way too many fouls. But we agree we called all of the fouls that were committed, and the total just happened to be 9-8, then, yes, we called a good half.

[Adam]

Maybe by "good game," they meant "well played" as opposed to "well officiated." Or maybe, "good game" meant "fun to officiate," as evidenced by the low foul count.

[Back In The Saddle]

In isolation, the foul count is meaningless. It is useful information only when considered in the context of many other useful bits of information, like M&M explained.

But it's more useful information to me during the game than afterward. During the game knowing the foul count is going to help me better manage the coach who feels he's getting the short end of the foul count stick.

[Tio]

I think the crew needs to BE AWARE of any foul discrepancy. Mainly because this can be a source of excitement from a coach. The one I always like is coaches complain about foul counts and one team is in a 2-3 zone and there aren't any challenges at the rim. As long as we can go back to the tape and the plays are right, then that is the most important thing. When the foul count is 7-1 and we miss the foul that could make it 7-2 is when we have issues.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

When the foul count is 7-1 and we miss the foul that could make it 7-2 is when we have issues.

More issues than if you miss the foul that could make it 8-1?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Tio

I think the crew needs to BE AWARE of any foul discrepancy. Mainly because this can be a source of excitement from a coach. When the foul count is 7-1 and we miss the foul that could make it 7-2 is when we have issues.

If any official is worried about a coach getting excited, he's in the wrong avocation imo.

We have issues when we miss any call. It's the nature of the beast.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If any official is worried about a coach getting excited, he's in the wrong avocation imo.

We have issues when we miss any call. It's the nature of the beast.

True. But you must admit that with a 6-1 foul count, the coach is likely to become excited without our having missed any calls at all.

[BktBallRef]

When OSU played Georgetown, Oden and Hibbard were saddled with early foul trouble, drawing all kinds of complaints about the officiating.

The offiicals were Kitts, Cartmell, and Valetine. They called 25 fouls in the game, an average of about 6 per team per half. Sounds pretty good to me.

Yet, it didn't matter, did it?

[JRutledge]

One of the most overrated aspect of officiating basketball, is foul counts.

Peace