Late Game Fouling

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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 can tell you definitively that this is wrong. First you admit that they have the right to complain, then you justify your philosophy because the ones you've had haven't taken the time to give you an earful? Good grief.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

I agree with this completely. I side with Nevada on this, I guess. If the leading team is willing to stand there and take the foul, call the first contact even if it's minor. But if they're playing keep-away, then I think we have to let them do it until they're actually disadvantaged. JMO.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

Pro philosophy? Hardly

"Basketball is basketball" - Al Batistta

I respect the GAME too much to "cheat" for anyone! I only use approved mechanics & apply the rules that IAABO wants us to follow for HS games.

That being said, in a end of game sitch with Team A passing the ball around to avoid being fouled & Team B fouls someone w/out the ball... (of course) intentional foul.
B1 contacts A1 (with the ball)... quick common foul.

I'm sure we're all passing on marginal east/west contact throughout the game, but EOG is different as the Feds acknowledge that fouling is an approved strategy.

I agree, that a foul/violation in Q1-3 is the same in Q4, on the other hand in Q1-3 the players probably AREN'T trying to foul... Q4 they ARE & officials who have a feel for the game recognizes that & obliges. The official who doesn't oblige the slight contact will often have intentional fouls in their ballgames & perception could be that he/she is ready to go & doesn't want the clock to stop.

Officiating is an art that some people get & others don't/won't.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Pro philosophy? Hardly

"Basketball is basketball" - Al Batistta

I respect the GAME too much to "cheat" for anyone! I only use approved mechanics & apply the rules that IAABO wants us to follow for HS games.

That being said, in a end of game sitch with Team A passing the ball around to avoid being fouled & Team B fouls someone w/out the ball... (of course) intentional foul.
B1 contacts A1 (with the ball)... quick common foul.

I'm sure we're all passing on marginal east/west contact throughout the game, but EOG is different as the Feds acknowledge that fouling is an approved strategy.

I agree, that a foul/violation in Q1-3 is the same in Q4, on the other hand in Q1-3 the players probably AREN'T trying to foul... Q4 they ARE & officials who have a feel for the game recognizes that & obliges. The official who doesn't oblige the slight contact will often have intentional fouls in their ballgames & perception could be that he/she is ready to go & doesn't want the clock to stop.

Officiating is an art that some people get & others don't/won't.

"Feel for the game" that's what i was looking for...

Good post

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I'm sure we're all passing on marginal east/west contact throughout the game, but EOG is different as the Feds acknowledge that fouling is an approved strategy.

The key word is "fouling", not "contact". If you go back and check why the Fed. made that statement, it is in regards to changing philosophy from fouling on purpose at the end of a game should be considered intentional, to fouling at the end of a game is an approved strategy that is part of the game, and it is not intentional just because it's on purpose.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

The official who doesn't oblige the slight contact will often have intentional fouls in their ballgames & perception could be that he/she is ready to go & doesn't want the clock to stop.

Again, the key words are in red. If that slight contact was not judged to be a foul in the 2nd quarter, how can it be a foul in the 4th?

If you go back to Rich's article, he said the officials missed two foul calls, before getting the 3rd. There is a chance that was a case of the officials not being mentally ready at the end of the game, knowing the situation, knowing that the team that was behind will be trying to foul, and therefore being in position to see the first two fouls before the 3rd one happened. Perhaps you are right - they weren't ready to go and just wanted the clock to run. We won't know. But I'm not going to blow the whistle at "slight contact", because I feel that gives the perception the official is being lazy and no longer using their judgement to differentiate between incidental contact and contact that is a foul. They are being lazy by just giving in to any contact. And that is just as bad.

Our antenna should be up at the end of these types of games. We should absolutely be ready to know the score, know the fouls, know the situation. We should be ready to make those same judgements about incidental contact vs. foul, and we should be ready to make them more often, and in different situations than we had earlier in the game. If a team misses their first couple foul attempts, and they end up doing something harder, then we should be ready to make that intentional or flagrant call. It's not our job to accomodate what one team or the other wants to do, it is our job to react to what actually happens. That is not the time to get lazy and simply turn off our judgement because we know what the other team wants to do.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Officiating is an art that some people get & others don't/won't.

Agreed. I think we all are trying to master that art. A good feel for the game is knowing what can and might happen, and putting yourself in the best position to make the calls that happen (or don't happen).

M&M I understand where you're coming from, good points!

[vbzebra]

I had a game where B2 was trying to foul late in the game to stop the clock and whiffed, then proceeded to do his best Damien McIntosh impersonation on his 2nd attempt at fouling.

YouTube - KC chiefs Tackle McIntosh Pancakes two Miami Dolphins! (week 16)

Had to call an intentional on that one. Still think A1 went farther than the ball did after getting "fouled"

[Adam]

Could that have been flagrant?

[cardinalfan]

I say just leave the rules as they are. Any time the Federation tries to help one of these situations, it seems like it just ends up more confusing.

I agree with BillyMac on this one. I'll be quick on the whistle to keep a kid from getting fouled too hard, and I've called a few intentional fouls when the player doesn't make a play on the ball.

One thing I've noticed around here is that the higher the level, the easier late game situations are to call. The smaller schools seem to continue to foul until they make a 2-point game a 15-point defeat, which takes about 10 extra minutes. The bigger schools realize when they're beat and let the other team dribble the clock out.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

Whatever. I would bet that you are in a distinct minority on this one, regardless of the NFHS's official position and the text you posted.

I've also never had a complaint in making such a call. All fouls I call would be supported on video, but I'm not going to be as patient on my whistle in the last few minutes when the one team is TRYING to foul. Lunge, contact that's a legitimate foul, tweet. Not.....let's see if he plays through it.......

And I think that is the key. If contact that's ruled incidental in the first quarter is ruled that way when a team is trying to foul, well, then that team is going to try harder.

Acting like the circumstances are the same doesn't make them that way -- in the first quarter, the defense isn't trying to stop the clock with a foul and the contact will be isolated to the initial contact, not on escalating amounts until the foul is called (and someone is laying on the floor).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Acting like the circumstances are the same doesn't make them that way -- in the first quarter, the defense isn't trying to stop the clock with a foul and the contact will be isolated to the initial contact, not on escalating amounts until the foul is called (and someone is laying on the floor).

I think that this is an excellent point.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Acting like the circumstances are the same doesn't make them that way -- in the first quarter, the defense isn't trying to stop the clock with a foul and the contact will be isolated to the initial contact, not on escalating amounts until the foul is called (and someone is laying on the floor).

Of course the game circumstances are different, but the rules aren't. I still have yet to have anyone show me in the rule or case book where the standard for calling a foul is different at the end of the game than it is in the beginning.

I will agree if the offense stands there and is willing to "take" a foul, then yes, we should call the foul when the defense comes up and puts their hands on the offense. But if the offense is doing their job and keeping away from the defense, why should we penalize them by stopping the clock for something that is not a foul at any other time in the game? Is the answer is simply that we want to avoid escalating amounts of contact until someone's on the floor? Then my response is we missed calling a foul on one of those "escalating amounts of contact". If none of those amounts of contact would've warranted a foul call in the beginning of the game, and the player gets frustrated and puts the offense on the floor, then we need to call the intentional or flagrant. That's a coaching issue - if the players have not been taught to foul "properly" at the end of the game, it's not our job to penalize the offense and stop the clock because we're afraid the defense might get frustrated and put someone on the floor.

It's not our job keep players from being frustrated. Example: A1 gets the ball in the low post, makes his move, and B1 blocks the shot. You see a little bit of body contact, but not enough to affect the shot, and therefore no foul. Now, this same thing happens two more times down the court. Finally, A1 shows his frustration by lowering his shoulder into B1 and knocking him to the floor. So, what would your response be if I told you that you should've called a foul on one of the earlier blocks so A1 doesn't get frustrated and put B1 to the floor in that instance? Of course, if there was no foul initially, it's not our job to call something that isn't there simply to prevent frustration later.

Maybe, in realty, what we would both call in these situations is not that far apart. But what I'm reacting to is the comment that we should call a foul on "any amount of contact" in this situation. I have seen fouls called on a touch: "Tag, you're fouled." To me that's both lazy coaching and lazy officiating; the coach hasn't taught the players how to foul the proper way, and the official is putting aside their judgement to make an easy call. Yes, we should be aware of the time and situation - we should know which team is behind, that they will probably want to foul to stop the clock. We should be more aware of how they will try to do that, and work to be in position to get the contact that really is a foul. We should not take the easy way out and call a foul on simply any contact.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I will agree if the offense stands there and is willing to "take" a foul, then yes, we should call the foul when the defense comes up and puts their hands on the offense.

I take it that this is the heart of the matter.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I take it that this is the heart of the matter.

yes...and they each have about 3-4 more volleys left in them that should land in the same place before they agree that their philosophies are just different.

I do fall in the camp where if the offense IS playing keep away that the defense shouldn't just expect a foul. If they choose to try and make a statement then I just call what needs to be called. Its not the offenses fault that they are ahead and in a position to win. As officials we shouldn't feel it necessary to even out the skill on the court.

Case in point. When I was coaching we came out of the half with the ball in our possession. I was going to run the good ol line up on the wrong side of the court to confuse the defense. I told my inbounder to tell the official that we knew which way we were going so that he wouldnt think we were confused. He blows his whistle and points in our new direction, and then when our opponents looked confused and we had them he points and says again, and then he tells them which way we are going and which way they are going. By now we lost our 2 points that we would have had. This is similar to what is going on. Officials should not negate good coaching, or try and help bad coaching.

I will add however that if the contact is borderline in this situation I will call it. But I will not be looking to just call it because the team that is down NEEDS a foul.

[Adam]

I will blow and point once when I see a team do this.