Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players

[gslefeb]

Cameron - I understand what you are saying about holding the call and seeing the whole play (regarding the 3pt shooter)...but some thoughts:

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out. Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs? What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

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.

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Cameron - I understand what you are saying about holding the call and seeing the whole play (regarding the 3pt shooter)...but some thoughts:

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out. Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs? What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

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.

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

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.

I had a situation similar to Cameron's in a boys' sophomore game; except I called the foul 30 feet from the basket right after the guard released a pass to a streaking teammate heading for the basket. Coach yelled about me taking away a layup and wanting an intentional if I was going to make that call, and he was right about the layup (even if there's no way that was intentional).

[Coach Bill]

[QUOTE=Snaqwells;619359]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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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.

The two principles of the defense gaining an advantage and the offense still scoring despite that advantage are not mutually exclusive.

Nice try, though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Snaq - so, I guess you never have any cheap 3-point plays in your games?

Fixed it for ya

[btaylor64]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

... 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?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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.

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

If I were a player/coach I'd prefer the the lay-up/ open jumper over FTs or taking the ball out just to start all over again.

Draw the line? That's the sweet art aspect of what we do!! Gotta have a feel for the game... what each player can/can't play through...

I'd rather be late & right, than too quick & wrong.

Funny how that pertains to more than officiating

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Isn't this allowing the defender 6 fouls before they foul out. Also, this allows the defender to play more aggressive and thus changing the game? What happens the next time the same situation occurs? What happens if the 3pt shooter decided not to shoot?

It is not a foul until there is an advantage. Read the rules on Incidental Contact (Rule 4-27) which says clearly you must put a player at some level of disadvantage in order to have a foul. Now that is completely the judgment of the official making the call, but a 3 point shooter that decides not to shoot might not get a shooting foul. Maybe they get a common foul. But I have not seen a shooter that does not try to shoot so they get shots they intended.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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.

You cannot have a foul unless there is an advantage. So a no call might be the proper call because no advantage was gained by the contact. It is not about passing on an obvious foul. It is determining that the contact was not a foul which we do all the time.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Where does one draw the line? At what point is the offensive advantage "good enough" that you don't blow the whistle?

This is where your experience and ability comes into play. I think most officials either have it or they do not when it comes to judgment. The line is drawn by what you see. But I must clearly state that the rules do not consider all contact a foul and if that was not the case we would have many more fouls. This is why we get paid the big bucks; you have to make tough judgments some times. Not all contact is difficult to call, but the better the players the slower you need to have your whistle. It is really hard to say on this forum because we cannot easily show you what a foul is or is not based on our judgment.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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".

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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).