Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players

[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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

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.

[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

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

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.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Snaq,

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.

Sounds like an intentional foul to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

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.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I think there are def. Many times that advantage can be used but sometimes a foul is a foul.

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