Who to call the foul on?

[jeffpea]

if you know how many fouls each guy has...I give it to the one who has fewer fouls. or, i charge it to the player who has the smaller impact on the game (iow - give the better player a pass and charge it to the other guy)....

[co2ice]

Come on have some fun how many multiple fouls do you get to call. Nail them both with a foul and shoot 2 free throws!!!!!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

if you know how many fouls each guy has...I give it to the one who has fewer fouls. or, i charge it to the player who has the smaller impact on the game (iow - give the better player a pass and charge it to the other guy)....

Good job...that should start a several page discussion...

Actually, in theory you could call a multiple foul - one foul on each player. In practice, however, it is almost always one foul on the player that you feel fouled "first", and the second is ignored (unless it was flagrant).

[Old_School]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

if you know how many fouls each guy has...I give it to the one who has fewer fouls. or, i charge it to the player who has the smaller impact on the game (iow - give the better player a pass and charge it to the other guy)....

You'd make a great NBA official.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

if you know how many fouls each guy has...I give it to the one who has fewer fouls. or, i charge it to the player who has the smaller impact on the game (iow - give the better player a pass and charge it to the other guy)....

I agree with you whole heartedly Jeff. 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. By both of them fouling at virtually the same time it gives you leeway to do something like this.

Now that's not to say, the fouls happen, but with a decent amount of time in between. You can't pick and choose, you have to take the obvious first foul.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

if you know how many fouls each guy has...I give it to the one who has fewer fouls. or, i charge it to the player who has the smaller impact on the game (iow - give the better player a pass and charge it to the other guy)....

Originally Posted by Old_School

You'd make a great NBA official.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Good job...that should start a several page discussion...

This has been said/discussed before.

I even recall one poster with another variation - if you know one guy is a starter and the other one is a sub just off the bench, give it to the sub!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I agree with you whole heartedly Jeff. 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. By both of them fouling at virtually the same time it gives you leeway to do something like this.

Now that's not to say, the fouls happen, but with a decent amount of time in between. You can't pick and choose, you have to take the obvious first foul.

(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?

[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.

[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.

[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'.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

if you know how many fouls each guy has...I give it to the one who has fewer fouls. or, i charge it to the player who has the smaller impact on the game (iow - give the better player a pass and charge it to the other guy)....

First - this is as wrong as it gets. Second - why would you know how many fouls each player has? Do you work games where the fouls are posted on the scoreboard? Other than that, there should be no knowledge on your part of these numbers. Your comment is one of the reasons why. Call the game as it happens. It's up to the player's actions to determine the outcome, not your misguided sense of what has impact and what doesn't. Remember - be in control of the game without controlling the game.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

First - this is as wrong as it gets. Second - why would you know how many fouls each player has? Do you work games where the fouls are posted on the scoreboard? Other than that, there should be no knowledge on your part of these numbers. Your comment is one of the reasons why. Call the game as it happens. It's up to the player's actions to determine the outcome, not your misguided sense of what has impact and what doesn't. Remember - be in control of the game without controlling the game.

So who would YOU call the foul on Mark?? And what rationale would you use for your decision??

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So who would YOU call the foul on Mark?? And what rationale would you use for your decision??

I would call the foul on whoever committed it first. If, by some miracle, they were both committed at exactly the same split second, then I would call a multiple foul.

Absent that, I'd call it on the kid with the worse looking haircut.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Absent that, I'd call it on the kid with the worse looking haircut.

So if Ed Hightower were playing in your game....