The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 12:19pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
I will not speak for him, but I know what he is saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Bill View Post
Snaq - so, I guess you never have any 3-point plays in your games? Because, according to your logic, if a guy gets whacked during his lay-up try and continues on to make the lay-up, you have no foul.
That is not what he said. There is a difference between a shot being affected (not allowing a follow through, knocking an airborne shooter to the floor, no displacement of the ball handler) and incidental contact. And if a lay-up is completed and nothing changed the motion (illegally) and the normal movement, you do not have a foul by rule. Forget judgment for a second, the rules say that is not a foul.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 12:28pm
Ch1town
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Bill View Post
Snaq - so, I guess you never have any cheap 3-point plays in your games?
Fixed it for ya
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 01:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 600
Coach bill,

Don't overthink this. An obvious foul is an obvious foul, so we must call it regardless. Plays that are 50/50 are the plays that we want to let start, develop and finish in order to make a conclusive decision.
__________________
"players must decide the outcome of the game with legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 01:47pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Bill View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
The rule is that the offending contact must provide some sort of advantage in order to be a foul. So, if the play continues as the offense intended in spite of the contact, there is no foul to call.
Snaq - so, I guess you never have any 3-point plays in your games? Because, according to your logic, if a guy gets whacked during his lay-up try and continues on to make the lay-up, you have no foul.
Coach, please see my original post on the topic. I've inserted it and added emphasis to the salient point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Coach, regarding your comment on delayed whistles. Sometimes the result of the play is the only way to determine if the contact should be ruled a foul. Personally, I don't care if the shot goes in.I do care about the following:
1. Was the shot made significantly more difficult?
2. Was the player knocked out of bounds? Sometimes this takes a moment to materialize.
3. Was the player able to play through the illegal contact?
4. Was the player knocked off balance and forced to travel? Again, this sometimes takes a moment to materialize.
5. Was the player able to make the play he/she intended to make. Example, a bump around the midcourt line as the player throws a pass to a wide-open teammate streaking for a layup.
I know some guys who do judge a foul by whether the shot goes in; I don't. I have always been clear on that in this board, and in fact stated so explicitly in this thread. If the contact didn't significantly affect the shot, I'm not calling a foul even if he misses it. If it made the shot more difficult, then I'll likely call the foul even if it goes in.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 01:54pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 View Post
Coach bill,

Don't overthink this. An obvious foul is an obvious foul, so we must call it regardless. Plays that are 50/50 are the plays that we want to let start, develop and finish in order to make a conclusive decision.
Any more cliches we can throw in there?

Seriously, I don't like this way of saying it (personal preference) because an obvious foul is different to a fan that it is to a coach. It's different to a coach than it is a player. And officials have a different perspective than all of them. So "obvious foul" means nothing, in my opinion.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 02:38pm
Official Fiveum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Eurasia - no, Myasia
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
... an obvious foul is different to a fan that it is to a coach. It's different to a coach than it is a player.
I really couldn't care less whether a fan, coach or player thinks a foul is "obvious" or not. Any foul that fits the rulebook definition of a foul and that is clearly seen by me is an "obvious" foul and I call it. Yeah - I know a lot of contact is subjective as to whether it had an effect on the fouled player, but that comes with experience. I don't think there's any doubt that some fouls are "obvious" - a player taking both of his hands and pushing another player into a wall, for instance. Is there anyone here who wouldn't consider that an "obvious" foul?
__________________
I don't know what "signature" means.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 03:08pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Refner View Post
I really couldn't care less whether a fan, coach or player thinks a foul is "obvious" or not. Any foul that fits the rulebook definition of a foul and that is clearly seen by me is an "obvious" foul and I call it. Yeah - I know a lot of contact is subjective as to whether it had an effect on the fouled player, but that comes with experience. I don't think there's any doubt that some fouls are "obvious" - a player taking both of his hands and pushing another player into a wall, for instance. Is there anyone here who wouldn't consider that an "obvious" foul?
Probably not, but no one is talking about a play where someone puts someone in the wall. That being said, just because someone ended up in the wall does not mean you have a foul either. Contact can be severe and not have a foul (under the rules). So the issues are definitely not cut and dry even amongst all officials. If it was, then some would not be working certain levels and others never advance. Judgment is a big part of this.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 03:15pm
Ch1town
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Refner View Post
I don't think there's any doubt that some fouls are "obvious" - a player taking both of his hands and pushing another player into a wall, for instance. Is there anyone here who wouldn't consider that an "obvious" foul?
Not only is that "obvious", but it's also a non-basketball play that might require a dq. I believe Snaqs was speaking on dislikes for using the term "obvious fouls" in regards to regular contact during the course of a game.

Ever had a player holding the ball in a triple threat position & the defender whacks him across the arm while reaching for the ball? Sounds like "obvious" contact but it may/may not be a foul. The good players don't want that call, even though the fans want it & think you're horrible for not making the call... until the player takes it to the rack & puts his defender on a poster, that is.

Then it becomes good officiating to stay out of that play
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 03:35pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town View Post
Not only is that "obvious", but it's also a non-basketball play that might require a dq. I believe Snaqs was speaking on dislikes for using the term "obvious fouls" in regards to regular contact during the course of a game.
Exactly, which is why I added "(personal preference)" to the post. My point is that using the term "obvious foul" is pointless since it means something different to everyone involved.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 05:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch1town View Post
Sounds like you call a great game Cameron! Too many times we as officials pop it while the play is still developing. If we learn to be patient, we don't have so many GIs in our game.

Mere contact does not constitute a foul.
If I could only make that good of a decision 100% of the time.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 05:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb View Post
Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out.
Perhaps, but not all that likely. How many games do you have where players foul out? And what are the odds of it being a player that was involved in the few plays of this nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb View Post
Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs?
Quite possibly. But, how many of those times will the offended player still be able to make the desire play...if they don't...and they usually don't..call the foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb View Post
What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?
The coach should bench them. I've had more coaches, outside the scope of the game, say that they would rather have a high percentage shot than the a throwin. Whether you consider a 3-pointer a high percentage shot is another question...but undefended it comes pretty close for a "shooter".
Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb View Post
A no call - when there is a foul - may have an immediate advantage for the offense but in the long run it can be a disadvantage as basketball has penalties for accumulating fouls.
Technically, if there was no call, it was not a foul.

What you say is true, but we are generally to judge each play for its specific advantage/disadvantage.

A team should only be penalized when illegal contact individually creates a disadvantage. The accumulation of fouls that leads to a penalty should only matter when each of those fouls created a disadvantage on their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gslefeb View Post
Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?
When it doesn't materially detract from their opportunity to make the desired play or score.

(All of this ignores any aspect of cleaning up rough play independent of advantage/disadvantage).
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 07, 2009, 11:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Any more cliches we can throw in there?

Seriously, I don't like this way of saying it (personal preference) because an obvious foul is different to a fan that it is to a coach. It's different to a coach than it is a player. And officials have a different perspective than all of them. So "obvious foul" means nothing, in my opinion.
I understand what you're saying. I believe a lot of officials know what obvious contact is. Could we agree a player who is contacted in the head by a player who is swinging to block a shot, is an obvious foul? Or how about a player shooting a floater and the def. Player is swinging to block the shot and makes contact hard on his tricep nowhere near the ball? I, along with what I would think to be 98-99% of officals, would like to believe that we would deem these an "obvious" foul. Plays like these are the easy ones that could call themselves. The other "tweeners" are the plays that most are referring to.

Also in your list, I would like to disagree with the one that states something about a player playing through the illegal contact. If the contact is illegal it must be called a foul. If it is marginal or inconclusive then a no call can be substantiated. At the high levels there are players that are big enough to play through illegal contact but that doesn't mean I have the right to ignore it. I'm doing a disservice and penalizing that player who made a committment to hit the weight room so he could play through that contact to earn himself more and 1s. This job is truly an art and views vary but I would like to think we agree on 99.9% of plays that would be obvious.
__________________
"players must decide the outcome of the game with legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 08, 2009, 12:57am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 View Post
Also in your list, I would like to disagree with the one that states something about a player playing through the illegal contact. If the contact is illegal it must be called a foul. If it is marginal or inconclusive then a no call can be substantiated. At the high levels there are players that are big enough to play through illegal contact but that doesn't mean I have the right to ignore it. I'm doing a disservice and penalizing that player who made a committment to hit the weight room so he could play through that contact to earn himself more and 1s. This job is truly an art and views vary but I would like to think we agree on 99.9% of plays that would be obvious.
I disagree simply because without an advantage, there's no foul. Your hypothetical player gains the advantage by getting two easy points instead of having to shoot free throws. If it doesn't affect him, there was no foul. That's the rule. When I talk about illegal contact that doesn't cause an advantage, I'm talking about contact for which the defender is responsible by rule but there is no foul because there was no advantage.

The caveat is similar to Camron's perfectly worded post; completely aside from clean-up calls.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:03am.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 08, 2009, 01:10am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 View Post
I understand what you're saying. I believe a lot of officials know what obvious contact is. Could we agree a player who is contacted in the head by a player who is swinging to block a shot, is an obvious foul? Or how about a player shooting a floater and the def. Player is swinging to block the shot and makes contact hard on his tricep nowhere near the ball? I, along with what I would think to be 98-99% of officals, would like to believe that we would deem these an "obvious" foul. Plays like these are the easy ones that could call themselves. The other "tweeners" are the plays that most are referring to.
Again the rules say that contact can be severe and still be incidental. Even your examples have exceptions and caveats to them in order to determine fouls. And if you are going to use the term obvious, you still must understand that this is not going to be the same for everyone in every possible situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor64 View Post
Also in your list, I would like to disagree with the one that states something about a player playing through the illegal contact. If the contact is illegal it must be called a foul. If it is marginal or inconclusive then a no call can be substantiated. At the high levels there are players that are big enough to play through illegal contact but that doesn't mean I have the right to ignore it. I'm doing a disservice and penalizing that player who made a committment to hit the weight room so he could play through that contact to earn himself more and 1s. This job is truly an art and views vary but I would like to think we agree on 99.9% of plays that would be obvious.
A foul is not a foul until the contact puts someone at an advantage and puts the person being contacted at a disadvantage. A slight bump or a hard bump might still not be illegal if you deem no advantage was gained. And just because there is contact does not mean the defender or offensive player actually did anything illegal. Contact is bound to happen.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sat Aug 08, 2009, 08:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Again the rules say that contact can be severe and still be incidental. Even your examples have exceptions and caveats to them in order to determine fouls. And if you are going to use the term obvious, you still must understand that this is not going to be the same for everyone in every possible situation.



A foul is not a foul until the contact puts someone at an advantage and puts the person being contacted at a disadvantage. A slight bump or a hard bump might still not be illegal if you deem no advantage was gained. And just because there is contact does not mean the defender or offensive player actually did anything illegal. Contact is bound to happen.

Peace
So how would you explain it to shaq when he "obviously" gets grabbed to keep from scoring by a 6 ft. 175 lb. PG and he just muscles up and through this kid to score? I know this for a fact. You're going to have to whack him or the coach bc if you tell them it didn't create an advantage, they're going to say that he will rarely ever get a call then cause he's way bigger than everybody.

I think there are def. Many times that advantage can be used but sometimes a foul is a foul.
__________________
"players must decide the outcome of the game with legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Losing confidence in partner DTQ_Blue Baseball 7 Tue Jun 19, 2007 06:30pm
Confidence dweezil24 Softball 10 Tue Jan 24, 2006 05:36pm
Confidence Builder and a Thanks Hartsy Basketball 4 Fri Jan 14, 2005 02:06pm
Confidence ilya Basketball 5 Mon May 21, 2001 05:53pm
Any coaches/players here? ilya Basketball 4 Fri Apr 06, 2001 12:21am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1