Late Game Fouling
 

How much leeway do we give teams who are fouling to stop the clock late in a game? What has to happen before you call an intentional foul?

I had a game last week where the defender whiffed on the steal attempt/foul attempt with his left hand and then in the same motion grabbed the dribbler's jersey with his right hand as the dribbler. Intentional? What about the "arms around the dribbler" foul?

If it would be intentional in the first qtr, it is in the 4th.

Sounds like I might call this intentional (whiffed on the steal attempt/foul attempt with his left hand and then in the same motion grabbed the dribbler's jersey with his right hand), but you probably HTBT.

A bear hug is almost always an intentional... (I just don't want to say always)

It sounds cliche but if the defender is making a play for the ball I usually call it a personal foul, just grabbing the jersey as the dribbler beats them, would constitute an intentional.

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
#4
Intentional Fouls. The committee continues to be concerned about how games end. While there has been some improvement in the application of the rule, there is still need for further understanding and enforcement. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly.

Additionally, in throw-in situations, fouling a player that is not involved in the play in any way (setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bound pass, etc. ) must be deemed intentional. Far too often, officials do not call fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria.

Yeah you gotta be solid with your calls
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="0" height="0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.webmasterquotes.com/godaddy/client/pages/2149/info.html"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.webmasterquotes.com/godaddy/client/pages/2149/info.html" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="0" height="0"></embed></object>

For late game management and when the opportunity presents itself (like coming out of a timeout) how many of you will go to the teams huddle that is trailing and as they break remind them if they are going to begin fouling make them basketball fouls. Not sure my wording is 100% but you get the idea.

I have on occasion gone by a bench and told a coach to watch his fouling (They know what I mean. Not sure the kids do). But, only at the Rec League level.

Nope, not my job to coach the teams.

I will frequently (50% of the games in which such a situation occurs) remind them to "keep making basketball plays."

That's a great phrase bob; consider it stolen.

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.

Is it legal for the coach to say "Give the Foul" or "Foul!"

Yes.

If a team is fouling at the end of the game, unless its over the top, and if the kid was borderline intentional I remind them to make plays for the ball. If not then I dont need to say anything, most kids and coaches at the varsity level know this.

Yes.

I don't call 3-second-violations just cause the coach asks for them. :D

Seriously, that used to be an interpretation - thankfully, it no longer exists. Judge the play on its merits.

I have said this at least once in another thread, but I believe the "bear hug" done in the right way is perfectly fine. The fouler is just wanting you, as the official, to know that he is trying to commit a foul and sometimes, especially at the HS level, for whatever reason, alot of us don't think that repetitive touching of a player is a foul so they then go to the bear hug. If we know what the team's objective is (to foul) then any amount of contact should be deemed as such. There is no need to referee with purity here. They want a foul, so just give them one as soon as contact occurs.

After saying that though, you also have to referee the way the boss wants you to. If he says that the bear hug is intentional, then the bear hug is intentional, no IFs ANDs or BUTs about it!

I also personally don't like the terminology used for an intentional foul, but if i could understand what the NFHS was saying i could apply it. What is an "ADVANTAGEOUS POSITION" anyway. Is a kid, curled up with the ball, in any more of an "advantageous position" than the defender? just a question for thought...

Btaylor, you couldn't be more wrong.

1. The bear hug is a classic intentional foul.
2. I'm okay with calling a quick foul here, if the offense is letting it happen. If, however, the offense is actually playing and trying to avoid the foul, make the defense commit an actual foul. Don't reward them for sloppy play.
3. Advantageous position would be the player going for an uncontested layup who gets pushed from behind. Or a kic about to break free when he gets held by the defender behind him.

Why does your definition of foul change in this situation? If you call a foul for "any amount of contact", aren't you directly contradicting 4-27-1? Aren't you penalizing the offense by allowing the defense to accomplish what they want (stopping the clock), without doing what they need to do, by rule, to stop the clock?

Remember, he is a pro-am guy with that rule set mentality.
They don't even have an intentional foul in the book - if you are fouling a player with the ball.

If a team wants to foul, I am going to give it right away, too. Consider it preventive. The first attempt will be polite, the fourth will be the defender putting the opponent through the floor.

I don't see the bear hug as automatically intentional. If a player reaches around like that and gets just the ball, it's a held ball. Who am I to say (I know, I know) that the defender isn't reaching around for the ball?

Mostly, people should call how it's called in their area. It takes a lot to get an intentional at the end of the game in most places I've lived and this is not one place I would want to be known for being different.

While I understand what you're saying, I'm still not sure we should call things differently at this part of the game. I know the team is trying to foul, so I will be looking closely. Yes, I certainly understand the team can get frustrated if they miss the first couple of attempts, and that usually leads to harder attempts. But I've also called the intentional in this very situation, and the coach wasn't happy - with his players. I'm still in the camp where incidental contact and contact deemed to be a foul is the same at the beginning of the game as it is at the end. Why should I penalize the offense if the defense isn't quick enough to get there to foul "properly"? Didn't the offense do their job, so to speak, and build up the lead at that point in the game? Aren't they doing their job, so to speak, keeping the ball away from the team that's behind? Why should I penalize them by stopping the clock and calling slight contact that I would easily pass on early in the game?

Again, I will be watching closely; I don't want to miss contact that would otherwise normally be called.

I actually agree with this.

I agree as well.

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 situation."

"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.

This is really helpful. :rolleyes:

Call it both ways.

It's 8 to 2. EIGHT! to TWO!

M&M
I think what you're saying is correct - too many people mistake first foul for first contact.
You ahve to make the contact be foul, if not you are doing a disservice to the team with the ball. They are trying to move the ball quickly to avoid being fouled and keep the clock running. If you just blow the whistle on some little contact you are penalizing them for doing the right thing just as you are giving an advantage to the team fouling if you do not make them foul.
No body said let them kill each other but make them foul the palyer and if they do it too hard call it the way it needs to be called. call what you have been calling all game - just be quick about it!

The reality here would be that the defense starts to increase the intensity of the fouls. Now you have an increased chance for an intentional and/or flagrant. What has been told to me by officials from the HS to D1 to NBA level is that in these situation err on the side of caution. Because what I have seen happen is perfectly good officials judgment called into questions because they followed advice that was similar to what is being said in this thread. If it is remotley close that a team is playing keep away and the other team is trying to foul, contact by the team trying to foul, especially on the ball handler, will be called quickly. Even moreso if the defense warns me that they will be going for a foul. However if the team playing keep away is getting the ball out of their hands quick enough then the contact is either incidental or intentional or flagrant, but not common.

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!

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.

Bingo

Per NBA/NCAA Big dogs:

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

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

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. :) ]

From My Pregame ...
 

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.

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 :D

The NFHS has made it clear that they do not desire that D1/NBA philosophy at the HS level.

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

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

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.

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. :(

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.....

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 <B>not</B> the time to get lazy and simply turn off our judgement because we know what the other team wants to do.

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!

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" :eek:

Could that have been flagrant?

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.

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).

I think that this is an excellent point.

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 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.

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

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.

Actually, what you said was:
This is the heart of what I disagree with. <B>Any amount of contact</B> 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.

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 <B>did</B> 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.

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"?

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 <B>proper</B> 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.

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? :D

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.

Who are those two guys, a couple of schmucks? :D

I completely agree with above but...

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:

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.