Late Game Fouling

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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...

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.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

[CMHCoachNRef]

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 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.....

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

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

[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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

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!