I'm Not Bailing Anyone Out
 

Was wondering what the concensus is on the A player with the ball that goes up with a jump shot forward, that is launching himself into a defender. I used to bailout A seeing the contact and that was accepted. Now I am a little more conservative on that and opt for a no-call rather than a bailout. That ofcourse gets a little more yack from the offensive coach. The contact is not bad enough for an offensive call...but it just doesnt look all that hot. Any thoughts you might have would be helpful.

Seems to me like you're progressing as an official.

I don't see this as refusing to bail out a shooter, though. I see it as refusing to punish good defense. The defender did nothing wrong. Unless the defender is also jumping into contact, this contact is all on the shooter.

To me, bailing out the shooter is a situation where A1 drives into the lane out of control, jumps off balance in a poorly executed shot attempt (maybe from a horrible angle with regard to the basket. Then, there's a bit of contact on the shooter that really doesn't make his shot any worse.

I would agree. IMHO this behavior is not a legitimate part of the game of basketball. The shooter's job is to shoot; the defender's job is to defend. Nobody's job description includes "fling yourself into your opponent in such a way as to fool the stupid ******* with the whistle into thinking you got fouled."

A good official will recognize that the shooter created all the contact and not penalize the defense. A very good official will also file this guy's number away in his/her "keep an eye on this bozo because he may prove to be a game wrecker" file.

While normally no-calling this ends the problem. But, if the behavior persists, a PC foul should clean it up in a hurry.

If the shooter caused the contact and the contact did not warrant a foul on the defensive player, I will pass. If there should be a PC foul, I will call it. If the contact is equally bad, I might pass. I will try not to ever reward an out of control player just because there was some contact.

Peace

Nice post. I will add that many good players can play threw some "light" contact.

Earl the Pearl doesn't play in our leagues, either.

As long as, the defender have LGP and the offense does as stated above. I'm going PC IMO the defense is being penalized by the NO CALLS!!!

My discussing is: If the defense launched into the offense (shooter) a foul will be called. Why the different philsophy on similiar plays?

If no advantage is gained by the contact, I'm not makeing the call either way.
It's not a different philosophy; it's the same advantage/disadvantage concept given in the rules when "foul" is defined. When a player is shooting the ball, the threshold for advantage is significantly lower. If a player is simply trying to defend a shot, the same contact may not hinder him; especially if the offense helps him by jumping off balance.

I agree with this completely. And a no-call here often leads to my absolutely favorite coach/official interaction:

Coach: You telling me there was no contact on that?!?!

Me: Of course there was contact, Coach.

(but there wasn't a foul)

Frequently, I'll see a dribbler try to navigate between/through defenders with LGP. They'll not have room, there'll be contact that's passed on (because the defenders are simply playing good defense), and they'll travel.

Just make sure that it's obvious to everyone that you stayed with shooter until the entire shooting play was over. That's about all you can do.

I had the same thing in a game last Friday. The shooter launched himself diagonally from the edge of the lane. The defender just stood straight up. Shooter makes the contact but I have nothing.

Coach says as I pass in transition, you gotta call something on that. I asked did he want a player control foul on his shooter?