Late Game Fouling

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

Along the same lines, when we are in an obvious fouling situation, my crew talks about making sure we get the first foul, because if you don't get the first one, the second attempt to foul is usually going to be ugly.

I always remember an end of the game situation where we were behind, and fouling "on purpose". My guy fouled a kid two or three times, no call, then out of frustration, pushed the kid. Intentional foul. Thanks, ref!

[mick]

Due to an end of game situation a few years back, I called a foul [on the *Stud*] that didn't need to be called. It was his 5th, and he didn't want it.
Since then, I only call real fouls.

Originally Posted by mick

Due to an end of game situation a few years back, I called a foul [on the *Stud*] that didn't need to be called. It was his 5th, and he didn't want it.
Since then, I only call real fouls.

Per NBA/NCAA Big dogs:

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

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

[Rich]

http://www.gpboa.org/Articles/Watching%20Works.pdf

The author is a friend of mine.

[mick]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

http://www.gpboa.org/Articles/Watching%20Works.pdf

The author is a friend of mine.

Good, on both counts.


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

[BillyMac]

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.

[btaylor64]

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

...the blame should then be on you for not calling the "slight" contact earlier in the process.

...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.

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.

[btaylor64]

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.

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.

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.

[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.