Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

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

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

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

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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