Late Game Fouling

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

I've already said this once in the thread but i feel it is worth mentioning again. If you try to referee these end of game situations too purely, you are just going to hurt yourself. Being a PURE, BLACK AND WHITE rulebook referee is not a good thing. The game of basketball is very grey and by tweaking a movement here or there or by a player being in a slightly different position on the court can make the outcome of the play be totally different. We don't deal in "absolutes" all the time in officiating. That would make this game scientific which would not be for the betterment of the game of basketball. This job is an art, and like most arts it takes time and experience to develop and nearly perfect your craft. If it were a science anyone could learn it because their are nothing but absolutes.

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it probably is a duck. Everyone sees the team is trying to foul and you as the officials are attempting to justify a way to not call what is obvious to everyone else.

I definitely understand a team attempting to pass the ball around as well. If they are doing that then i need the slight contact to happen well before the player releases it to the next player.

"Feel for the game" is very important in my opinion. It shows that you understand the game and its tiny nuances, whether it be from an officials, coaches or players standpoint.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I've already said this once in the thread but i feel it is worth mentioning again. If you try to referee these end of game situations too purely, you are just going to hurt yourself. Being a PURE, BLACK AND WHITE rulebook referee is not a good thing.

Actually, what you said was:

Originally Posted by btaylor

If we know what the team's objective is (to foul) then any amount of contact should be deemed as such.

This is the heart of what I disagree with. Any amount of contact is not a foul, not in the beginning of the game, not at the end. And you have yet to provide any justification for this position.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it probably is a duck. Everyone sees the team is trying to foul and you as the officials are attempting to justify a way to not call what is obvious to everyone else.

If you mean call the foul that happens on the obvious contact, then we agree. If you mean call a foul because it's obvious to everyone that they're trying to foul, then I absolutely disagree. "Trying to foul" is not a reason to blow the whistle. In fact, aren't you justifying the reason to no longer make those tough decisions, and bailing out the defensive team by doing what they want? Cool, "everyone knows" the team is trying to foul. That's not why I'm blowing the whistle. I'm blowing the whistle because the team did foul. Do you also blow the whistle when a player dribbles the ball above their head? "Everyone knows" that's a travel/carry/something, right? If you're calling your game based on what you think the fans/coaches think, you're on the wrong track.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I definitely understand a team attempting to pass the ball around as well. If they are doing that then i need the slight contact to happen well before the player releases it to the next player.

Doesn't this go against your statement above? What if the contact does happen after the release? Didn't you say "any amount of contact should be deemed a foul"?

Originally Posted by btaylor64

"Feel for the game" is very important in my opinion. It shows that you uderstand the game and its tiny nuances, whether it be from an officials, coaches or players standpoint.

We agree with the surface of this statement. However, where we disagree is in completely changing the definition of a foul at the end of a close game. That is not a "tiny nuance", and not doing that does not make one the dreaded "rule book official". I'm not advocating not calling fouls. In fact, I'm saying we need to be in position and make those calls, not use the excuse that we didn't see it, so therefore we passed. Why should we let the coach or player take the easy way out and allow any touch to be a foul, instead of working hard and fouling the "right way"? Why should we take the easy way out and guess on contact, or allow any contact to be a foul at the end of the game, instead of working to be in position to make the proper call?

If it's illegal contact, call the foul. If it's legal contact (such as contact you had judged to be legal earlier), don't bail out one team with a lazy call, just because that's what everyone wants. I would be willing to bet the team that's trying to play keepaway doesn't want "any contact" to all of a sudden be a foul at that point in the game.

[deecee]

M&M in btaylors defense a lot of what I have heard other officials say, like a foul at the beginning..., I have also seen them not practice. I think that we have a lot of officiating cliches that are thrown around as "common" knowledge and practice when in reality they are just platitudes that dont really carry much weight.

I do, however, believe that you do what you say simply by the voracity with which you defend your points. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by deecee

M&M in btaylors defense a lot of what I have heard other officials say, like a foul at the beginning..., I have also seen them not practice. I think that we have a lot of officiating cliches that are thrown around as "common" knowledge and practice when in reality they are just platitudes that dont really carry much weight.

I do, however, believe that you do what you say simply by the voracity with which you defend your points. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Voracity? Who are you and what have you done with mbyron?

I do believe, as a total group, we officials do things that are lazy. There are many of us that call that high dribble as a carry, not because it's correct, but because it's the easy call to make - no one will argue it. Some of us will still make the "over-the-back" foul call. Some of us will guess on foul calls at the end of a close game because that's what the other team is trying to do.

I have yet to see anyone show a memo, case play, rule, POE, interp, something scribbled on a napkin, whatever, to show that we should call a foul just because we know the other team wants to commit one. Doing that is the easy way out. I'm not a perfect official, and I've done that before. But the more I work, the more I appreciate that taking the easy way out isn't what is best for the players. They work hard to learn how to dribble, pass, shoot, defend, etc. the right way; I should do the same.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I have yet to see anyone show a memo, case play, rule, POE, interp, something scribbled on a napkin, whatever, to show that we should call a foul just because we know the other team wants to commit one.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I recently heard Mr. Rush, Sr. & Mr. Clougherty discuss "take" situations.

According to those two extremely knowledgeable sources, the team behind is taking a foul in the end of game situation.

"Put your hand on 'em & it's a foul."

"You have to know TIME, SCORE & FOULS ."

"You have to know if a team is taking a foul... end of game situation I'm behind by 2 & you have the ball with less than 5 seconds is a take si?uation."

"You have to have your anttena up & be mentally ready."

Apparently the amount of contact that constitutes a foul does change from the beginning to the end of a game.

Who are those two guys, a couple of schmucks?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If you mean call the foul that happens on the obvious contact, then we agree.
"Trying to foul" is not a reason to blow the whistle. In fact, aren't you justifying the reason to no longer make those tough decisions, and bailing out the defensive team by doing what they want? Cool, "everyone knows" the team is trying to foul. That's not why I'm blowing the whistle. I'm blowing the whistle because the team did foul.
If you're calling your game based on what you think the fans/coaches think, you're on the wrong track.

Why should we take the easy way out and guess on contact, or allow any contact to be a foul at the end of the game, instead of working to be in position to make the proper call?

I completely agree with above but...

Originally Posted by btaylor64

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck then it probably is a duck. Everyone sees the team is trying to foul and you as the officials are attempting to justify a way to not call what is obvious to everyone else.

btaylor makes a great point as well, minus "trying to foul" but I know what he's saying

Besides I'm sure all parties involed in this discussion base the EOG foul calls upon, and I quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...working to be in position to make the proper call?

You just happen to word it differently.
Bottom line is, if Jurrasic Referee puts you, btaylor & myself on a game I'm sure we'll call the close EOG situation in a likeminded manner.