Who to call the foul on?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm calling it on the shorter player because he has no business being in the paint with the big fellas.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Who do you think steals the ball from the big fellas?

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And guess which one he is?

M&M is a smart fella. Also, he's intelligent too.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

M&M is a smart fella. Also, he's intelligent too.

He probably hasn't called a multiple foul, either. If two guys foul a shooter at the 'same time', does the shooter get 4 shots if he missed the shot?

Foul trouble wasn't a problem of mine.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

M&M is a smart fella. Also, he's intelligent too.

Well, I wish I was as smart on my NCAA predictions as I was on my prediction about this thread...

[Mark Padgett]

Guys - the obvious answer is to call it on the player who didn't buy foul insurance. If they both bought it, call in on the kid with the highest deductible.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think the same applies here - B1 and B2 didn't foul at the same time, one fouled right before the other, even though it was approximately the same time.

Look, I have no problem with not calling multiple fouls. I don't remember ever calling one myself. What I am saying is that when you choose to make the decision that one foul came before the other, you shouldn't use criteria such as which defender is the "star" player and/or which player has the most fouls. I guess a good criteria to use is which player's foul interfered the most with the ball handler's ability to do whatever they were trying to do.

As to not knowing (or caring) how many individual fouls a player has at any given time during a game, I try to ignore any indication of that, except if the total is five. In fact, I've told scorers numerous times not to state that stat to me or my partner (except for five, of course).

Whenever a situation occurs in which a player gets a lot of foul calls early, I switch to one of my alter personalities so I forget that it happened. I think Juulie's actually witnessed this happening.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Look, I have no problem with not calling multiple fouls. I don't remember ever calling one myself. What I am saying is that when you choose to make the decision that one foul came before the other, you shouldn't use criteria such as which defender is the "star" player and/or which player has the most fouls. I guess a good criteria to use is which player's foul interfered the most with the ball handler's ability to do whatever they were trying to do.

Mark, the problem is you're not determining which foul first. That's irrelevant on this play, since the ball was live the whole time. You're determining which one to call, and you've got to choose some criteria to use. You can flip a coin (or a point guard) for all I care. I'd prefer to base it on which contact had more effect on the shot.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mark, the problem is you're not determining which foul first. That's irrelevant on this play, since the ball was live the whole time. You're determining which one to call, and you've got to choose some criteria to use. You can flip a coin (or a point guard) for all I care. I'd prefer to base it on which contact had more effect on the shot.

I thought that's what I said: "I guess a good criteria to use is which player's foul interfered the most with the ball handler's ability to do whatever they were trying to do."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

I thought that's what I said: "I guess a good criteria to use is which player's foul interfered the most with the ball handler's ability to do whatever they were trying to do."

Sorry, I missed that. I got stuck on all the talk about who fouled first. My mistake.

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

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.

The reason the "tie goes to the runner" theory does not work, because the rule says no such thing. The runner must beat the throw or tag. If there is a tie, the runner did not beat the throw or the tag and they are out.

This is why umpires often say, "The tie goes to the umpire." That usually means they are going to be out.

Peace

[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.