Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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).

She becomes your assigner when you marry her.

[gslefeb]

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?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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).

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.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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?

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.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

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.

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

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

I was actually comending him on holding his position. I was also jus stating that the subject has become a stalemate and any further debate would prove pointless. I'm not saying he's right, I'm not saying I'm right although I would like to believe I am. Haha

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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?

Absolutely not! Why?
Because if A2 catches the baseball pass for the wide open dunk, why would you want to stop that play with a whistle?

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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?

Is A1s shot affected? If no... no call.
Is A1s landing affected? If no... no call.

Mere contact does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving in an enclosed area, contact is sure to happen. Any idiot could view or God forbid, HEAR contact & blow the whistle. The exceptional officials have a feel for the game & know when to & when not to blow the whistle.

The ideal games for an official to be on are the flowing, up & down, athletic contests. We should do our part in making good decisions to ensure that happens. Think BIG PICTURE... Don't be a GI

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Absolutely not! Why? Because if A2 catches the baseball pass for the wide open dunk, why would you want to stop that play with a whistle?

Uh....because a foul occurred and it's our job to call those? Hey, just a thought. BTW - Notice he said a "foul" occurred, not just "contact".

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Uh....because a foul occurred and it's our job to call those? Hey, just a thought. BTW - Notice he said a "foul" occurred, not just "contact".

Oh really? I didn't see that & still don't see where he said that. Below in bold is what I was refering to. Sorry, but I dont see myself calling a foul in this situation & I would hope you wouldn't either as contact may be severe & still not a foul in this instance.

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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?

[gslefeb]

Ch1twn - you missed answering the second part of my question. Each time B1 fouls A1 during the pass. The ball travels the same distance, the only change in the play is where A2 and B2 are during the pass. Therefore the contact is the same for each:

A. If A1's pass connects to A2; A2 goes in for a dunk. No problem with a no call.

B. If A1 passes to A2 - defense is back so no chance of a layup. Now do you call the foul?

C. If A1's pass does not make it to A2; Obviously, most of the time you can judge the pass not strong enough to reach A2 - therefore the foul can be called. But, what happens if the ball MAY have a chance to reach A2. Do you call a delayed foul - some two / three seconds after the foul occurred?


Another example:
If A1 is taking a jump shot - B1 contacts A1 on the elbow,

A. Ball goes in, No foul as the contact did not change the play?

B. Ball does not go in, foul is called as the foul has changed the play?



The Fouls I'm trying to discuss are the calls where there is illegal contact, but you - pass on them or call them - depending upon the outcome of the complete play. I trying to understand at what level of adv / disadv (based upon my examples) do you call the contact as a foul.

I'm not trying to argue if contact occurrs there should always be a whistle.

My question has always been: There is either a time constraint when the play is completed (hence my baseball pass example), OR there is the preceived advantage - does completing a pass nullify the foul? Or does the play need to offer a greater advantage to the offense (i.e. scoring opportunity) for a good no call.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

Each time B1 fouls A1 during the pass.

If that's true, then call the foul.

But, I suspect what you meant was "Each time B1 contacts A1 during the pass."

Your mis-use of the words reflects (but I won't posit on which is the casue and which is the effect) your bias.