Late Game Fouling

[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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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

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.