Establishing confidence, confidence and respect from coaches and players
 

What are some of the best ways to establish confidence, cooperation and respect from coaches and players.

1. Demand it, not with words, but by making it clear that anything else is unacceptable behavior.
2. Penalize if they don't properly give it. Don't allow yourself to be abused.
3. Treat them with respect.
4. Be professional, hustle, and do a good job.

Only so much you can do.
 

All you can do is be professional from the moment you accept the game to the time you arrive, to the time you leave. There is nothing you are going to do be able to do more than that. Some coaches will know your experience level and will set a tone for their players. Other times they will not know anything about you that can be done. People take their own perceptions and attitudes about respect. You may do all the right things and still not get someone's respect. All you can ever do is be professional and look professional. Judgments will be made about you long before you the ball is tossed up.

Peace

Be correct in what you do as much as possible, but whether you are correct or not, be quick and decisive.

If you want respect from coaches, make every call go their way. Of course, this works only half the time. ;)

Deliever more than you promise!

You can demand cooperation, but respect has to be earned. A recipe that has worked for me:

1) Be competent. Know the rules. Know the mechanics. Prepare.
2) Be confident. This is only possible if you master #1
3) Be concise. Avoid unneccessary conversation, editorializing before or after the game with fellow officials, AD's, coaches, or players
4) Be decisive. Crisp whistle. Crisp mechanics. Crisp voice when reporting.

No: it works 100% of the time, just with half the coaches. :D

Respect is not really the right word in this case. It's like the cartoon, where the couple is entering the cheap hotel room.

Her: Will you still respect me in the morning?

Him: I don't respect you now.

You know, I think I had this conversation with the very first coach who I T'd up, in my very first game as an official back when I was still in HS. Of course, a female coach from a Catholic school swearing at me in a game at a Lutheran school would have started a conversation in the gym regardless of who was having the conversation! :eek:

Pick a player you want to respect you, or a coach for that matter (you have to choose) and make every call go his/her way.

About six or seven years ago, I was working a boys HS rec tourney with a female official. After the first quarter, she told me she thought one of the coaches (a guy who looked about in his early 30s) was staring at her chest every time she got near him. She asked me to talk to him about it. I must admit, her request threw me a little. I thought about it and came up with this - before the quarter started, I went over to him and said (in a manner that gave the impression I was talking to him "guy to guy") something like, "Hey, you know my partner is a real looker, don't you think?" He gave me a dirty little smile and said, "Yeah, and she's got really nice t**s, too!"

I looked back at him very seriously and said, "Yeah, and if you don't stop staring at them, you're outta here. I'm serious." He looked shocked and eventually turned away. He didn't say anything or stare any more, however.

After the game, my partner asked me what I said to him. I told her that I said to him that even though she was an extremely attractive young lady, it wasn't professional to gaze at her during the game and that he agreed. She looked at me, smiled and said, "Yeah, right Padgett. I know you better than that."

Gee - I guess you could make a case that I "baited" him.:p

Actually, it will probably work all the time but with only half the people. :D

Mregor

Hmm. See post #8. :rolleyes:

1a. Understand going in that coaches don't like you (as an official which is the capacity you are in at the time), most players don't like you and many parents don't like you.
1b. Knowing the rules and the mechanics should be a given, but being able to apply the rules and doing a good job is priority #1.
2. Be professional. A professional official without 1b is just a professional who does a horrible job. From the time you drive on the school property, you must be professional.
3. Look the part. From your uniform to your fitness, look like a basketball official who is prepared to at least attempt to keep up with the action of the game. I can admit to gaining a little weight over the last couple of years although at 185 pounds I'm not plump by any means. But at camp a few weeks ago, my fitness began to impact how I did as the camp went along. My focus wasn't where it should have been. I sit here, sore, typing this having started a new workout to get me back to where I need to be. The hardest part is watching what I eat although it has improved dramatically over the last week. Fortunately, there aren't many Popeye's in Vegas. :D

A majority of coaches are uncomfortable with anything they are unfamiliar with. So the best way to establish confidence from them is to ref several of their games. Sometimes, there is no substitute for experience.

I cannot believe I missed this post, but this was excellent advice.

Peace

and we have a winner...
 

Just kidding, merely my perspective. Just in case anyone gives a hoot what a HS coach feels works for him (probably not, but what the heck, I'm a registered user).

I like quick whistles followed by clear and desicive mechanics. Slow (late) whistles sometimes imply to me that the Ref was waiting to see how the action played out (if the shot goes in, maybe he ignores the push). Might not be the case, but it looks that way to me, the players, and to the folks in the stands.

I like a brief (if possible) answer to a legitimate relevant game question. I know the only response I'm entitled to a statement I make is to be ignored, or to get whacked. Just like anybody, I do not like to be talked down to, insulted, or disrespected when I have previously and up to that point established that I am behaving in a respectful manner. If I'm treated in this manner without cause (rarely), I will never respect that Ref.

It really bothers me when a Ref lags behind (lead or trail). If he's outa shape and can't keep up with the pace of the game, it's difficult for me to have respect and avoid saying something. I would never say something loud enough for fans to hear, or to otherwise embarass, but I have said something face to face like, "Sir, I'd really appreciate if you'd get to the same half of the court the ball is on." I realize that could get me seat belted, but I'd take it. In the maybe 2 times I've actually said that, they actually hustled better afterwards. You gotta understand, we are rural, we play some games on an Indian Reservation where once in Jr High, one of the Refs had a pepsi in his hand 1/2 the game and leaned against the wall behind the basket instead of standing behind the end line.

Sometimes Refs will pause, or even take a player aside and speak directly to them. I generally do not like it when Refs talk to my players about the way they play basketball. Every time that happens, I ask the player what the talk was about, and to their credit (the Refs), It's been my experience that I've appreciated the feed back or comment given to my player. So I think this is a sort of predjudice on my part that is unfounded.

Last observation: ANY advice in here about dealing with coaches that begins with phrases such as, "Most coaches..." should be lightly regarded at best. We are all individuals, just like you guys. We are nomore all the same than any group of humans is all the same in desiring basic respect. :cool:

Coach, regarding your comment on delayed whistles. Sometimes the result of the play is the only way to determine if the contact should be ruled a foul. Personally, I don't care if the shot goes in.
I do care about the following:
1. Was the shot made significantly more difficult?
2. Was the player knocked out of bounds? Sometimes this takes a moment to materialize.
3. Was the player able to play through the illegal contact?
4. Was the player knocked off balance and forced to travel? Again, this sometimes takes a moment to materialize.
5. Was the player able to make the play he/she intended to make. Example, a bump around the midcourt line as the player throws a pass to a wide-open teammate streaking for a layup.

This is why we do not listen to "most coaches." :D

For the record a slow whistle is now promoted or taught too many levels of officiating. The quicker whistle often does not allow the play to complete or shows less confidence that what you saw will take place a second or two later. And as an official you really do not care what coaches, players and fans ultimately think about this part of the game. That is something they have to deal with or get over. ;)

Well I will disagree for this obvious reason. There are reasons officials should not really care in the end what a coach thinks about them, because most coaches have an agenda or a bias towards what we do. They are not looking at the game strictly from the rules or training; they are looking at the game through what took place to their team. If this was not the case, then you would hear coaches complain about calls we make in favor of their team. So yes there are a lot of things that apply to most coaches. Yes you are individuals, but your role is still the same as it relates to your team and your role in the game. And that does not change because you are an individual. ;)

Peace

I'm pretty sure Jeff has a typo below that substantially changes the meaning of what I'm thinking he meant to say...



Assuming that is the case....some coaches just don't get it. A bump at the FT line on a drive where a foul call would result in the team getting the ball OOB is not as valuable as the player being allowed to continue for an undefended shot if they are able to get by that last defender in position to do anything (the one who just fouled them).

EDIT: Or for that matter, a layup is even more valuable than a 1-and-1 or 2 FT shots when the possible foul occurs before the act of shooting begins.

I had a coach just about blow up on me a couple seasons ago when his guard, from near the top of the key and about 15' off the sideline, drew a defender who promptly whacked the guard across the arm as the guard was releasing a pass to a teammate. The coach got suddenly quiet when I directed his attention toward his 3-point sharpshooter in the corner who was about to release a shot with no defener anywhere near.....swish...and a smile from the coach. A foul call is not always necessary or the best result. If the pass had not made it to the intended recipient, a foul would have been the right call...but calling it as it played out would have disadvantaged the fouled team.

Yes it was a typo. I just changed it.

Peace

I'll agree on the clear and decisive mechanics, but a quick whistle is a bad practice. The longer that an official has to look at a play, the better his/her judgment is. Quick whistles are wrong way more often than patient whistles.

Reasonable questions deserve a reasonable response, so long as the coach is not questioning call after call after call.
I agree that officials should be in shape, but that sarcastic comment would not do you or the game any good.

Sure all coaches are different, but there are some characteristics that about 99% of them share.

Sounds like you call a great game Cameron! Too many times we as officials pop it while the play is still developing. If we learn to be patient, we don't have so many GIs in our game.

Mere contact does not constitute a foul.

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).

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 :D

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

Nice try, though.

I will not speak for him, but I know what he is saying.
 

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

Fixed it for ya ;)

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.

Coach, please see my original post on the topic. I've inserted it and added emphasis to the salient point.

I know some guys who do judge a foul by whether the shot goes in; I don't. I have always been clear on that in this board, and in fact stated so explicitly in this thread. If the contact didn't significantly affect the shot, I'm not calling a foul even if he misses it. If it made the shot more difficult, then I'll likely call the foul even if it goes in.

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 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

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 :)

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.

If I could only make that good of a decision 100% of the time.

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.
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.
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".
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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 :(

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".

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

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 :rolleyes: as contact may be severe & still not a foul in this instance.

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.

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.

Bob, yes.. I was trying to imply that the contact was great enough to warrent a foul..if all other factors hold.

I understand first there is contact, then there is judgement as to whether the contact is a foul, the judgement takes into account the adv / disadv, etc...I'm trying to discuss.

So yes, it should be B1 contacts A1, given what follows - would you call a foul?

Correct?

I cannot answer the rest of your post because of the words you use.
Illegal contact is a foul...
Marginal contact can be passed on...
But those decisions cannot be made until after seeing the whole play. Some contact may be marginal then upgraded to illegal (in the officials judgment) after the completion of the play. And vis-versa

And that "if all other factors hold" is ad/disad and/or judgment. So, it can't possibly be answered.

gslefeb,

The problem with your example is you assume that what we have been talking about here is passing on illegal contact. I do not recall that anyone said to pass on illegal contact. But to have illegal contact you must have some kind of disadvantage to the player being contacted. And the rules clearly express this position. I would never knowingly pass on illegal contact. I might pass on contact I deem incidental and that is comes with judgment and experience. And this is all that anyone here has really said. No one has advocated not calling a foul when necessarily. We just want to make sure that there is an actual foul.

Peace

Ok, let me try this again. Apparently, I'm not being clear because this whole business of whether the shot goes in keeps coming up.

I don't care if the shot goes in or not; I don't recall whether or not I've evern blown my whistle on a shooting foul after the success of the shot was determined. I can say I've never used that to make my determination, especially on a jump shooter.

Again, for me, the determination of advantage comes with whether or not there was a noticeable impact on the shot. Was it significantly altered due to the contact for which the defender was responsible? If yes, foul. If not no foul. I've no-called incidental contact on missed shots, and I've called fouls on made shots; without regrets.

As Rut alluded to, the other factors are whether the landing is altered and whether we're looking to clean up rough play.

As for the passing scenarios. If A1 is intending to throw a pass to A2 at the top of the key to re-set the offense, and after the release A1's arm gets slapped by B1 it's very likely a no-call. This is where the whole "a foul is a foul" mantra serves only to confuse the situation. If the contact somehow impedes A1's movement, then a foul could be called. If it's early enough to affect the speed and/or trajectory of the pass, a foul could be called. Sometimes, the answer to these questions isn't so easy, so experience comes into play.

Just like I don't care whether the shot goes in, I really don't care whether the pass actually results in a layup or the re-setting of the offense. It's about whether or not the pass or shot is attempted or completed as I judge it was intended to be attempted.

It's easier just to call a foul when the whole gym hears the slap; but it's not necessarily the right call even if it's the expected call.

FWIW, I'm not convinced we'd call it too differently out on the court. I think the number of plays that I would let go and you'd call would be very minimal.

Snaqwells - thanks for the attempts..How's this:

Contact occurs - in order to be considered illegal:

A. Rules are applied: LGP, Verticality, Blind Screens, illegal use of hands...etc
B. Judgement is applied: Was the contact incidental, affect on the play?, Advantage / Disadvantage?

If A is true the official applies the judgement in part B. While applying the judgement it is important for the official to see the complete play. If part B also indicates the contact is illegal, a foul has occurred.

My attempts (regardless of how poorly worded) only were to try to get a better understanding of part B.