Good, on both counts.


[ Worked in your state [Hurley] last night and Sammy was on the mic. :) ]

From My Pregame ...
 

Last Two Minutes:
Let’s not put the whistles away in the last two minutes: That wouldn’t be consistent with the way we’ve been calling the game. We’re not calling anything in the last two minutes if we haven’t already called it earlier in the game, unless it’s so blatant that it can’t be ignored. If the game dictates it, let the players win or lose the game at the line. We don’t want to be the ones who decide the game by ignoring obvious fouls just to get the game over. If the winning team is just holding the ball and is willing to take the free throws after strategic fouls, then let’s call the foul immediately, so the ballhandler doesn’t get hit harder to draw a whistle. Let’s make sure there is a play on the ball by the defense. If there’s no play on the ball, if the defense grabs the jersey, or pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player, we should consider an intentional foul. These are not basketball plays and should be penalized as intentional.

Like i said in my previous post, you can't be too pure at the end of a game. If it is a 2 point game with the team ahead in possession of the ball and 5 sec. on the clock, they are going to foul so calling immediate contact is just good awareness, because if you don't call that then the next one is more than likely going to be intentional in anybody's book and the blame should then be on you for not calling the "slight" contact earlier in the process.

Ch1town,

I've been in on many sessions with Ed T. Rush and he is the most knowledgeable and one of the best teachers of the game... ever! He teaches that this is an art and not a science, which is how the game should be approached. The science guys are wanting this sitch to be a legitimate foul, which in this circumstance could cause the offensive player to take exception to and possibly retaliate to the foul, whereas if you treat it as an art you get the immediate contact as you know what the opposing team is wanting to accomplish, which is to foul and prolong the game to give themselves a chance to get back in the game.

This is good debate.... but as always i think im right :D

The NFHS has made it clear that they do not desire that D1/NBA philosophy at the HS level.

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

As demonstrated by my last post that "pro philosophy" is in direct opposition to what the NFHS desires. :rolleyes:

In reality, it amounts to nothing more than cheating for the trailing team. The other team has worked hard to obtain the lead near the end of the game, but instead of now making them meet the burden of committing a legitimate foul in a proper manner to meet their strategic need, you advocate aiding their cause to catch up by greatly lowering the criteria for a foul at this point of the contest. :(

Well if that is how NFHS wants it thats fine by me, but this directly contradicts common sense and preventative officiating in my opinion. If you want retaliation fouls due to you not calling an easy foul and then having a kid laying another out and looking at you like your stupid for not calling the first one, once again go ahead. I think it keeps everyone out of trouble by calling it then not calling. Not a soul in the building (even the coach who's team is getting fouled) is going to say a word if you take the foul, but if you don't then their could be big pushback and possible retaliation on the court.

I disagree. If the offensive player is just standing there with the ball and the opponent comes up and puts his hands on him, it's fine to call a foul. BOTH teams are happy with that.

However, if the team with the lead is moving the ball around and playing keep -away to run time off the clock, then they have every right to be upset with you for calling a touch foul. That most certainly is NOT what they want. You just favored their opponent. :(

They have the right, but they ALL (100%, TAKE IT TO THE BANK) won't say a word on a TAKE foul, cause they understand what is trying to take place.

NEVER EVER had a coach mad that his team is getting purposely fouled even if they are passing the ball around... NEVER

I must take issue with your statements, here. As a coach, if you were calling a touch "TAKE" foul on my weakest FTer while my team is running our spread offense, I WILL absolutely give you an earful.

In Ohio we have no shot clock. If my team is up by four with 30 seconds remaining in the game, I MUCH prefer to keep the clock moving by continuing to move the ball. ESPECIALLY as opposed to sending my 53% FTer to the line for a 1-and-1 on a touch foul after he has already passed the ball.

I understand what you are saying in terms of trying to prevent the retaliation that is caused by missing a fairly significant contact. But, I think we have to be careful here until the NFHS changes the rules -- and their POEs. Perhaps, some day, they will allow the coach to "order a foul" and the officials would grant it -- like a time-out. But, until that happens, I am thinking that I want to make sure that contact deserving of a foul is expected -- by BOTH coaches.

Just my opinion.....You certainly have the right to have a different view.....

I agree with not calling slight contact when the ball is long gone, but i take exception to your comment about your poor FT shooter. My father coached actively for 30 yrs. and now is more of a consultant in coaching and so i know the game from a coaching standpoint as well and i'm pretty sure you don't know what your doing if A) your poor FT shooter is touching the ball during the passing process and B) your poor FT shooter is even in the game.

No coach wants their worst shooter going to the FT lane and i understand that

I disagree. Most times when I try to "pass" on these endgame deliberate touch fouls, the next act is, at a minimum, a borderline intentional foul. That coach is now even less happy after their star player is the recipient of a hard foul. After trying both options over the years...calling the first contact is wise. The NFHS has reversed itself on the topic of late game fouls. The NFHS has since said, late game fouling is an accepted part of the game and should be expected. We shouldn't require a team to be overly aggresive in order to get a foul call even when the team with the ball would rather just run the clock out.

1. If the defender causes excessive contact and whacks the opponent's star player have the stones to call an intentional.

2. The NFHS has certainly NOT reversed its position on late game fouling as you claim. It still wants the level of contact for a foul to be consistent throughout the game. The NFHS has merely said that fouling near the end of a game is an acceptable strategy and that the fouls aren't to automatically be deemed intentional even though they are purposely committed and done to stop the clock, as long as the player makes an effort to play the ball. The NFHS said that is the right way to employ this tactic and the coaches must teach it and the players must adhere to it.

3. The only change in the position of the NFHS was a reversal of the ruling that when the coach instructed his players to foul it should be deemed intentional. That provision was eliminated.

So John Calipari doesn't know what he is doing? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the whole team is poor from the FT line.

Face it, your whole conception of this is shaped by the money-driven NBE. That league needs to make it such that the team that is behind has a good chance to come back and win in the final minutes in order to prevent TV viewers from shutting off the game in the last quarter. It's all about selling ads and getting TV money.

Sadly, the NCAA game has moved in that direction in the past 20 years with the rise in the popularity of the NCAA tournament. However, the HS game doesn't need that and hopefully won't go that way.

You can save your pro philosophy for the pro game.

Was at a FB game last night where I thought the refs (different league than mine) did a good job. Opportunity to call Intentional Fouls was there late in the game and they opted to pass on them. Had no bearing on the results IMO.

Based on what is said by Nevada above, the highlighted part is what make me go hmmmm and where I personally struggle. Although I don't call many, I guess I call more intentional fouls than others.

Normally, for me if a player "intentionally" grabs a uniform of a player going by, or does the two-handed push to the back I will call it. But, I usually will call the "bear hug" against the player with the ball intentional as I consider it a "non-basketball play" and NOT an attempt to "play the ball." What about the off-ball "bear hug" or hold against a player without the ball, especially, as has been noted, the worst foul shooter? How can that not be intentional?

Ummmm.....I'm pretty sure that I had years (especially Jr. Hi years) in which my 5th best FTer was a 53% shooter (or perhaps 4th or 3rd best).....and I think I would do just fine in a "coaching of the game" contest.

I still maintain that we should not be ASSUMING that the coach ahead wants a foul to be called (even if his BEST FTer had been fouled) -- they may still prefer the clock to run. That was your assertion. I still disagree with that.