So if the contact doesn't put him at a disadvantage, how does he deserve a foul? He's scoring easily without any actual restraint.

Take it further down, to a player not quite as big as Shaq but still bigger than his defender. He gets bumped by the defender, but it has no affect on him. You gonna call that just because he would have been affected if he was smaller? Go ahead, I'm not.

You are assuming that I am going to have to whack someone because I explain to them the rules. I do not have a problem explain to coaches or players that I ruled there was no advantage or no disadvantage on a contact play.

I have quoted rules and given philosophy. You have not said anything about what the rules say in this discussion. I do not see anywhere in the rulebook where the term "a foul is a foul" is mentioned. Now the great thing about this is this is why we get paid the big bucks. When you are working what you might determine is a foul on a particular play is your prerogative to do so.

Peace

Snaq,

I'm not talking about a bump that could or could not be a foul. That is the 50/50 play I discussed. I'm talking a player who "obviously" to you, me, your wife in the 10th row and my girlfriend in the 50th row, gets hit or grabbed in a clear and concise manner in order to keep a guy from scoring. 50/50 plays such as the two plays you've referenced are not the plays in question.

Would you agree that not all fouls are 50/50 "I have to make a decision one way or the other" plays? There are some fouls in this game, even on and 1s.

I would also like to ask do you think with the thought process that you screwed up too many calls if you've had a lot of and 1s in your game?

My point is that 50/50 plays change as the players get bigger and stronger. Bigger players require more contact to affect them. What is obvious to your girlfriend is irrelevant to me, and should be to you; unless she's your assigner as well (not that there's anything wrong with that).

What makes a foul an "obvious" foul to me is the affect on the opposition. If there's no obvious affect on the shooter, then there's no obvious foul. Could there still be a foul? Sure, but I would say it's not obvious.

I will say this. Every foul call you make is a decision one way or the other, sometimes that decision is easier than other times.

And for your last question, I said twice in this thread already that I don't care if the shot goes in when determining whether it's a foul. I have never waited to see if a shot went in before blowing my whistle, and never wished I had. Have I looked back at a game and regretted some calls and no-calls? Sure, but that regret was completely separate from whether the shots went in.

On The Rebound ...
 

The calls or that I most often replay in my mind involve advantage, disadvantage, and contact, in rebounding. Sometimes there will be some contact between two players going for a rebound, I'll decide that the contact is putting one player at a disadvantage, blow my whistle, and find that the player who was put at a disadvantage easily caught, and held onto, the rebound. I'll say to myself, "Damn, I wish I had been more patient with my whistle". On the other hand, in a similar situation, I'll see the same kind of contact, and think that the player who has been contacted can easily catch, and hold onto the rebound, playing through the contact, decide to hold my whistle, which then ends with the player who was contacted, losing possession the ball, usually out of bounds. The lag time is just a few fractions of a second too long to be a late whistle, and I'll say to myself, "Damn, I wished I had called that one".

I swear at myself a lot when I officiate. That's why my partners always ask me why I often wash my mouth out with soap during my post-game shower.

I never ask questions I don't want the answers to.

Please Don't Ask ...
 

Is that like, "Don't ask. Don't tell." ?

Sounds like an intentional foul to me.

No advantage
 

I have a problem with the no advantage, if a small defender whacks a power forward going for a layup - but he is strong enough to finish, that is a foul and should be called (and is called); but was there an advantage? I say yes there is - you are giving an advantage to the defender by allowing a free swing at the ball and he may block the shot.

BillyMac - the fouls you describe on the rebound effort - are how I understand the advantage / disadvantage to be applied. Did the foul put the person fouled at a disadvantage?

I agree with snaqwells comments about a pass to a player taking a wide open lay-up, contact on the passer is ignore (generally) to allow the lay-up.

It starts getting tricky as we move away from the lay-up; a wide open pass to a jump shooter? To me, we as officials start influencing the game when we start making judgement calls as to whether a team would want us to call it or allow their 40% 3 point shooter to shoot (what if he was only 20% shooter?).

The I did not call the foul because I thought you had a better option.. to me is not good.

Sorry coach - yes I saw the foul, but the ball was on the other side of the court and the dribbler was not looking to make a pass to the cutter, so the hold really did not put your player at a disadvantage.

thanks, - enjoying the civil discussion.

gsl, the problem is a foul isn't a foul without advantage/disadvantage. With your streaking cutter who never got the ball, he's still put at a disadvantage as you have no idea where the guy with the ball was intending to throw the ball. With your initial shooter, I didn't say if he can finish he doesn't get the call. I said if the shot isn't sufficiently (in my judgment) affected by the contact, there's no foul.

Likewise on the pass to the jump shooter. If the contact doesn't affect the pass (again, my judgment), it's not a foul regardless of where the pass was intended to go. I don't care if he was throwing it back to his point guard to reset the offense. If the pass (like the hypothetical shot) isn't made more difficult by the contact, it's not a foul.

Otherwise, there's no way to distinguish between incidental contact and fouls.

That is the essence of this conversation.

Peace

She becomes your assigner when you marry her.

A hard smack on the forearm of A1 by B1 will not be called a foul - if the A1 is able to pass the ball to A2?

What happens if A1 - deep in the corner - throws a full court Baseball pass to A2, during the pass B1 fouls A1; do you wait the two / three seconds to see if A2 can retrieve the pass? or do you call the foul?

I do not believe these are incidental contacts, these are fouls - that an official may / may not call. (I know - it's not a foul unless I blow the whistle - it is easier to type / explain my thoughts this way).

Snaqwells - A1 goes in for a layup - everyone in the building sees B1 hit A1 after the release of the ball. (by saying everyone sees this - I refer to the physical nature of the contact - it helps to describe the amount of the contact). But A1 shot is not altered, he is not put at a disadvantage. Are you saying you do not call this a foul?

Ds,

I have tried to make this point in regard to the hard hit on the arm, to no avail. Snaqs has made his point clearly and without waiver. There is no need to pursue or attempt to persuade any further.

Just because someone is hit on the head alone does not mean there was illegal contact. Unless you can show me or anyone where the rules say otherwise, this is not necessarily true. And that is the point that many here have tried to convey to you in this case. What if that hit took place with the defender in their vertical space and maintained legal guarding position? You cannot just simply say that there is an obvious foul just because someone is hit without other information being shared IMHO.

The disadvantage might be because the shooter was not able to land properly or where they were supposed to. This has nothing to do with just the shot being altered and I really did not read Snaq or anyone suggest the two things were mutually exclusive. And if there is contact with an airborne shooter and the shot is not altered in any way, the shooter lands normally, then I probably do not have a foul. Of course I would have to see the play to make that final determination, but it is not an "obvious" or "automatic" foul the way you described it. And honestly it does not matter if you disagree. The rules back this up completely and it is totally a judgment call. We will all be judged for our judgment calls on some level. And either way you call it someone might disagree with the nature of the call no matter what philosophy you ultimately use.


I also disagree with this statement as well. For one I did not see snaq or anyone dig their heals in the sand. I think the examples are generic at best and do not suggest anything obvious but a personal opinion. If that is all you are saying, then that is fine but that does not mean everyone here has to agree with it. Just like you do not agree, he is no more stubborn (for the complete lack of a better term) on this issue in my opinion than you have been.

Peace