Who to call the foul on?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ranjo

I have often tried to think of a scenario in which I would ever call a multiple foul. I think it would have to be two defensive players crashing into an airborne shooter from two different sides at the same time and so hard that the shooter would come down in a screaming heap with both defenders on top on him. I could probably sell it, but still hope I never see that play.

I might call it if both fouls were close to intentional. Hard enough I couldn't ignore them, but not quite bad enough to go intentional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I don't necessarily disagree; I was commenting on jeffpea's statement about using that as a reason to not call it on the "star", or the player with 4 fouls. For me, most of the time, the choice is easy - call it on the player that fouled first. Sometimes, it can be on the player that fouled harder instead. Very rarely will it be purposely on the player that has the least amount of fouls, especially if the additional reason is it will keep the coach or fans from getting upset.

I call it on one or the other for many reasons...sometimes I call it on the player who has more hair (being tham I'm bald ).

If given an equal choice between two players and I know the foul count, I just might make use of that information....but, in some cases, I may not. It doesn't come down to one thing....I give it to the player that "deserves" it the most. And since they both fouled, I either must call a multiple foul (not likely to happen), or, in absence of any rule that tells us what to do instead of calling a multiple foul, I get to decide however I like. I might even call it on the player that reacts most to the whistle... Or, I might call it on the one who reacts least.

It really all depends on what i had for lunch that day.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

(Ok, against my better judgement, here goes...)

What do you do in these instances, where B1 and B2 foul A1 about the same time?

- B1 has 4 fouls, and has been kinda mouthy all game, without really crossing the line, and B2 is a sub that rarely comes in the game. Would you still give the foul to the player with the least? Or would it be better to get rid of "the problem" in this case?

- What if "mouthy" B1 and "quiet" B2 both have the same number of fouls? Does it still matter? Or does your philosophy only apply to the number of fouls each player has?

- What if you're not sure who has the most fouls? Do you check at the table before deciding who to report the foul on?

- How does this philosophy jive with your signature line, where an official could ignore an action by one player to simply give the foul to a "more deserving" (or is it "less deserving"?) other player?

Why not simply observe the play and call the foul on the player that fouled first?

REMEMBER- you said in all these instances that B1 and B2 committed a foul at approximately the same time. In this case it gives you the leeway to choose:

In the first instance it is totally up to you. I have had the foul on the mouthy player before, unless of course the other player raises his hand, wanting to take the foul.

Can't really say what i would do in the 2nd instance.

No i don't check the fouls. if i know, then i can make a decision if i don't then i just pick one.

I'm not ignoring illegal contact or my signature. Illegal contact was committed and i called the foul. I did not ignore any illegal actions. In my league there are no "false multiple" fouls.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I call it on one or the other for many reasons...sometimes I call it on the player who has more hair (being tham I'm bald ).

If given an equal choice between two players and I know the foul count, I just might make use of that information....but, in some cases, I may not. It doesn't come down to one thing....I give it to the player that "deserves" it the most. And since they both fouled, I either must call a multiple foul (not likely to happen), or, in absence of any rule that tells us what to do instead of calling a multiple foul, I get to decide however I like. I might even call it on the player that reacts most to the whistle... Or, I might call it on the one who reacts least.

It really all depends on what i had for lunch that day.

A lot of times one of the players will raise his hand really quick. Usually an indication that his teammate is a star or is in foul trouble.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

REMEMBER- you said in all these instances that B1 and B2 committed a foul at approximately the same time. In this case it gives you the leeway to choose

And, as I mentioned before, I don't believe in ties, so the word "approximately" still means one happened before the other. My choice would (most often) be the player that fouled first.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I have had the foul on the mouthy player before, unless of course the other player raises his hand, wanting to take the foul.

What if the player that raises his hand is simply trying to influence your decision in giving him the foul instead on the "star"? How would that be different than the higher % shooter walking to the FT line if there is some confusion as to which player got fouled?

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Can't really say what i would do in the 2nd instance.

Boy, this game's taking a long time while we stand around waiting for your decision...

Originally Posted by btaylor64

No i don't check the fouls. if i know, then i can make a decision if i don't then i just pick one.

Coin flip? Rock, paper, scissors? Why not make the decision based on who fouled first?

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I'm not ignoring illegal contact or my signature. Illegal contact was committed and i called the foul. I did not ignore any illegal actions. In my league there are no "false multiple" fouls.

However, if you call the foul on the "sub", instead of the "star", and it was the star that fouled first, then yes, by rule, you are both ignoring the illegal contact/foul, AND calling a foul on a player that didn't commit one. (If you are not calling a multiple or false multiple foul, then the second contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant.)

I was simply responding to your statement:

Originally Posted by btaylor64

That is the perfect situation to give the foul to the player with fewer fouls or the one that can have the least amount of impact on the game.

In rare instances, I can see doing this, but not as a blanket statement that all officials should follow every time. I would prefer to give the foul to the player that committed the foul.

Remember, there are no ties (just like baseball), so one happened before the other. Perhaps the second foul was harder, so you rule the first contact incidental. That's fine. But I can't find any rule, case, mention in the "Simplified and Illustrated", NCAA memo, or note from any of my assignors mentioing your philosophy. It sounds a lot like making the "least objectionable call" instead of the right call. Maybe in rare instances that can be done, but never as a common occurance.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I call it on one or the other for many reasons...sometimes I call it on the player who has more hair (being tham I'm bald ).

And all this time I thought you were just helping the environment by wearing solar panels on your head.

[WreckRef]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

And all this time I thought you were just helping the environment by wearing solar panels on your head.

I thought he wore those at work to help make processors more green.

[btaylor64]

[QUOTE=M&M Guy;591392]And, as I mentioned before, I don't believe in ties, so the word "approximately" still means one happened before the other. My choice would (most often) be the player that fouled first.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

What if the player that raises his hand is simply trying to influence your decision in giving him the foul instead on the "star"? How would that be different than the higher % shooter walking to the FT line if there is some confusion as to which player got fouled?

For reference of timeframe for approximately the same time will be seen as: FOUL-FOUL A foul that is distinctly apart would be: FOUL---FOUL with a small amount of time in between.

If they happen approximately at the same time then why not give it to the guy raising his hand. This is part of managing the game. Everybody sees that a guy is asking for a foul, so give it to him. Now if the "star" as you call him, OBVIOUSLY fouls before the player raising his hand then you have no choice but to give it to him, even if the "sub" raises his hand cause on tape, it is going to show that the obvious first foul is on the "star".

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Boy, this game's taking a long time while we stand around waiting for your decision...

I'm just saying I would have to be in the game to make a decision.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Coin flip? Rock, paper, scissors? Why not make the decision based on who fouled first?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do that. If you know EXACTLY who fouled with only .1 or .2 tenths of a second in between the two fouls happening and there are no issues whatsoever in the game, go right ahead and get the "first one", whichever it was. Which one was it again that hit him first? B1 or B2?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

However, if you call the foul on the "sub", instead of the "star", and it was the star that fouled first, then yes, by rule, you are both ignoring the illegal contact/foul, AND calling a foul on a player that didn't commit one. (If you are not calling a multiple or false multiple foul, then the second contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant.)

I was simply responding to your statement:

I'll tell you this, when fouls are .1/.2 tenths of a second apart, I could do any, many, miny, mo and be right. ha

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In rare instances, I can see doing this, but not as a blanket statement that all officials should follow every time. I would prefer to give the foul to the player that committed the foul.

Remember, there are no ties (just like baseball), so one happened before the other. Perhaps the second foul was harder, so you rule the first contact incidental. That's fine. But I can't find any rule, case, mention in the "Simplified and Illustrated", NCAA memo, or note from any of my assignors mentioing your philosophy. It sounds a lot like making the "least objectionable call" instead of the right call. Maybe in rare instances that can be done, but never as a common occurance.

Sometimes you have to do what you gotta do to survive and sometimes you have to step up and take the hit and do the right thing. I believe calling a foul on a "sub" vs. "star" with no more than .1/.2 tenths b/w fouls is doing what you have to do to not cause any more stink in the game, especially when the "sub" is raising his hand!

I know we aren't changing each others mind, but this is good for people sitting on the sidelines and reading. It lets them decide how they want to ref.

M&M, unless i feel it is absolutely necessary or i need to clarify something i said (which is very possible), I am bowing out of this debate. The last word is all yours. I believe this has been healthy and good for you, I and all who have read it.

[referee99]

The simple answer is this:
If you have multiple fouls, call the foul on the player who calling the foul on would show your 'diversity-awareness'.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by referee99

The simple answer is this:
If you have simultaneous fouls, call the foul on the player who calling the foul on would show your 'diversity-awareness'.

I don't have my book in front of me, but I'm pretty sure multiple fouls are not the same as simultaneous fouls.

Multiple = Two Team B players fouling the same Team A player

Simultaneous = A1 fouls B1 and B2 fouls A2 at the same time

Double = A1 and B1 foul each other at the same time

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think the baseball analogy would be the phrase, "The tie goes to the runner." I've been told the correct call is, "There's no such thing as a tie." The ball beat the runner, or the runner beat the ball, even if it's by a mere fraction of a second, and it's the umpire's job to determine which it is.

Here's what I heard. Keep in mind that I only officiate basketball, but I'm a baseball fan, and my children have played baseball ,or softball.

THE TIE RULE MYTH

There is no such thing in the world of umpiring. The runner is either out or safe. The umpire must judge out or safe. It is impossible to judge a tie. Lets look at the rules (OBR) 6.05 deals with a batter becoming a runner and 7.08 deals with a runner going to 2nd, 3rd, or Home.

6.05 A batter is out when: After he hits a fair ball, he or first base is tagged before he touches first base. Here, as it relates to time, the rule states the runner must be tagged before he touches first base. So if they were to happen at the same time, the runner would be safe because the runner was not tagged “before”.

7.08 Any runner is out when: He fails to reach the next base before a fielder tags him or the base, after he has been forced to advance by reason of the batter becoming a runner. Here it states that the runner must reach the base before the ball, thus a perception of time being a tie, the runner would be out.

With my limited knowledge of baseball rules, I have concluded that a tie goes to runner at first, and tie goes to fielders at the other bases.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think the baseball analogy would be the phrase, "The tie goes to the runner." I've been told the correct call is, "There's no such thing as a tie." The ball beat the runner, or the runner beat the ball, even if it's by a mere fraction of a second, and it's the umpire's job to determine which it is.

Not quite: assuming we're talking about 1B, the umpire's job is to determine whether or not the runner beat the ball. In a so-called tie, the runner did not beat the ball, so he's out.

Edited to add: BillyMac, professional instruction is to enforce the standard of 7.08 and ignore that of 6.05.