Foul out of bounds
 

A1 passes to A2 near the sideline. B1 in an attempt to steal the pass, bumps into A2 which causes A2 to fumble the ball out of bounds.

The ball was clearly out of bounds on A2.

B1 has four fouls before this play and is B's top scorer. B down 30 in early in the 2nd half.

What do you have on this play?

Failing to see why any of this matters?

Here's your proverbial "when in Rome" moment. This is going to vary by who runs your organization and their philosophy. Some will tell you to call the foul, regardless. I know for a fact that some evaluators will tell you to use the old "force out" call here and give the ball back to A without calling the foul.

Pragmatically, I can see the basis either way. If you call the foul, B loses their best player; but if you don't call the foul, B's best player is going to do it again and you'll have to deal with it.

Personally, I would say call the foul. If B1 has four fouls this early in the game, he's not playing good defense anyway. It's much easier to justify the foul by rule. But there are good officials I know who would tell you to go with the "force out" call.

similar to play in mens ncaa last year
 

Slight bump causes player to go out of bounds with 2 seconds left. Official calls foul. Team ties game.

Where is line drawn on the effect of individual or team foul count, score of game, and time left have influence on officials play calls?

Obvious things have to be called. Put how about the not so obvious?

Personally I think we have enough to focus on rather than worrying about all of the peripheral stuff. There needs to be an awareness of game situation to help you to direct your focus, but not to influence whether or not to make a specific call IMO. If you can process all of that information and use it to decide whether or not your fist goes up in that half second-second then more power to you, but I would rather take that stuff out of the equation and use my focus to decide whether or not a foul occurred.

I don't think the calling official had a choice in this play. There was contact caused by the defender and the dribbler clearly stepped on the out of bounds line. You have to call something and tough as it was, I think the right call was made.

In a close game in crunch time, they have to make that call (in spite of what Jay Bilas says) to preserve the game.

In this case, regardless of other circumstances, you need to call the foul. A2 may or may not of fumbled the ball out of bounds but we'll never know since B1 bumped them. I would have a hard time penalizing A for "causing" the OOB in this case since B actually caused it. YMM.

As Snaq indicated, if B1 had that many fouls early in the second half then it's not on us to keep them in the game. They're supposed to do that by playing defense and not fouling. We've all seen great players on sub-par teams collect not only their share of the points but also of the fouls (since usually no one else on the team can play offense or defense). The NBA takes pains not to foul out the "stars" and than goodness none of us call for the NBA so we don't need to worry about that.

For those who advocate a more nuanced approach to this, the line is somewhere between a 2 point game with 2 seconds left and a 50 point blowout in the third quarter.

You might also use the more "nuanced" approach if A1 might or might not have travelled, or B1 might or might not have touched the ball. In those cases, I agree that you can give the benefit of the doubt to "did not travel" and "B touched the ball."

Or, in my same examples above, change B1 from "star player with 4 fouls" to "troublemaker with 4 fouls" and give the benefit of the doubt to "committed a foul."

Ooh, thanks for clearing that up for me, Mr. Nuance. :D

Middle of the 1st quarter, same play happens. If the contact was enough to warrant a foul call then, it will be enough to warrant a foul call at the end of the game. If not, then no at the end of the game as well.

That "peripheral stuff" is what separates a good referee from a great referee. If team A is getting hammered by 30 with 2 min left in the 4th and and team B is on offense and is driving to the hoop and A1 has his arms barely non vertical and it causes the player to miss the shot, are you gonna call a foul??? I would hope not, granted it is technically a foul you are just now shoving this already embarassing loss right up team A's butt and making it worse.

I think the play in the OP is a foul, but by taking into account time and score I would be ok with passing on a slight bump that caused the player to lose control of the ball as long as it is late in the 4th and there is no possible chance of the team coming back from 30 down. That is just good game management. I personally wouldn't factor the type of player that committed the act into THIS play in particular bc it is so late in the game just the time and score. I think the no call is a win-win. The coach who is up, more than likely won't say anything bc it is a blowout and the other coach gets the ball down 30!

I also believe if there is more than a slight bump and the player gets knocked down then you should probably take a foul. jmo

You realize that your post is totally contradictory to what you say in your signature. If a player fouls another player, you call it. Please show me in the rules where it says you don't.

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a perfect basketball world where a foul is always a foul? At the lower levels, it just might be so.

The reality of officiating at higher levels is that we are taught that there are plays which are 50/50's. In other words, marginal contact that may or may not be a foul depending on the game situation.

You don't have to like it, but that is how it is. Those who don't understand that don't generally last real long.

....and let's just say for the sake of argument that you don't call the foul on B1. A few moments later, B3 goes on a 3-point shooting frenzy cutting the lead to 10 entering the 4th quarter. B1 goes on to score 20 points in the 4th quarter and Team B wins the game.....

If that happens, how would you feel? I know, it is only hypothetical, but so is the situation. As Shaqs indicated, there is a line that we MAY choose to draw. The problem is, as soon as we start drawing artificial lines, it can come back to haunt us.

A 32-2 game in which B1 has scored the only two points is a far safer "bet" than a 75-45 game at the same point in the second half. The problem is that electing not to call the foul CAN come back to bite you later in the game. For example, if the 30 point lead shrinks to 10 and THE EXACT SAME SITUATION presents itself, are you now going to call it? You sent B1 a message with your first non-call.

Lots of things to ponder during the game. A 3-point shooting team that presses can be down by a BUNDLE early if they are missing. But, make a few, get into their presses, get a few turnovers and 30 becomes 9 awfully quickly.

At the same time, 32-2, Team B incapable of scoring 30 points in the remainder of the game WITHOUT defense, your "bet" is substantially safer.

As I have stated on other boards, we will always have two types of referees -- one group that sticks tightly to the book and the other that follows the Spirit of the Rule, but not necessarily the Black and White of the rule. While they frequently despise each other's existence, their very existence keeps the other on their toes.

If the contact is slight, and it's questionable whether it caused the fumble, I'm probably passing on the contact and giving B the ball. If the contact is slight, but clearly caused the fumble, I'm probably passing on the contact and giving the ball back to A. For this particular play, I'll referee it that way in the first quarter and in the fourth quarter.

I'm not likely to factor time and score into the decision. Nor am I likely to factor in the offender's star power. However, if the offender is a problem child...that's likely going to be considered. Heavily. ;)

I don't believe it does. The OP says "slight bump" and that slight bump becomes a hard judgement call. It could be up for total debate whether it was a foul or not. I'm not missing anything that is a no brainer foul

This seems to be the prevailing opinion in my association, so I'm working on making the adjustment. I'll add that score does become a factor in their recommendations. I'm not particularly opposed to it, it's just an adjustment. Coaches don't have problems with it around here either; I've never heard them make a complaint about it.

I don't take foul counts into consideration, though.

I voted for call the foul, because that's my preference. It's a 55/45 preference, though.

There's an intersting article from Mary Struckoff on the NCAA-W site, that talks about "Preventative Officiating". Here's a portion:

There has been some discussion recently regarding “preventative officiating” and what to do when that concept/practice conflicts with strict enforcement of the playing rules. First, I think it’s important to re-read an excerpt from the CCA Officiating Manual, p. 32, 2.2.4, regarding “Call plays; manage situations.” It reads:

“Fairness and balance must be maintained in each game that is played. As much as possible, every official and crew should strive for consistent application of the rules and procedures. Consistency becomes more obtainable if officials react and make quality decisions based on the actions being presented to them — for instance, calling a violation or foul based on the actions of the player. Officials can also manage dead-ball situations to improve the game and the overall experience — for instance, dealing with a clock issue effectively and efficiently, encouraging a team out of a timeout huddle, talking to players on the floor after a held ball. An official must not succumb to managing call selection — that’s when managing turns into manipulation.”

Officials do not have a choice when it comes to applying the rules during live action and when observing and adjudicating “basketball plays” – the rules book is the “bible.” However, an official is taught early in his or her career to use “preventative officiating” in specific situations to manage and assist with administering the game. It’s not only encouraged, it is often expected by fellow officials, coaches and administrators.

Some examples she gives on managing situations would be the R going over to check the book at the 12:00 mark before the game; there is no rule that says the R should do this, nor does it conflict with any rule, but doing so can prevent any book issues, in that they can be corrected before the required 10:00 mark. Another example involves subs coming in the game - sometimes they forget to report, or don't wait for the official to beckon them on. Common practice is for the administering official to stop the player and have them go back to report, or simply beckon them after the fact to prevent a T from being assessed. Obviously doing either is inconsistent with the letter of the law, but still consistent with the spirit of the law. She also gives other examples on putting the ball in play after a TO, and about bench personnel standing, and how things are handled "in practice" might conflict with the letter of the rule, but not the spirit of the rule.

So, at least at the higher level of NCAA-W, the call in the OP will be the same at the beginning of game as it will at the end. It is a live ball play, it should be called the same no matter what. If the official chooses to pass because they think it was marginal contact, then so be it. If they choose to go the route of giving back to the same team to prevent both the foul and violation, so be it. Just make sure it's the same call, close game or blowout.

So you could go both ways on a judgement play and it wouldn't necessarily be wrong but missing a blatant Out of Bounds play is ABSOLUTELY incorrect, at the beginning and end of the game.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not arguing about whether the call should or shouldn't be a foul, or a simple OOB call. That would be someting the calling official can judge while seeing the actual play. I'm simply pointing out that, at least in NCAA-W, the "peripheral stuff", as you called it, does NOT matter in how this call is made. It will be the same call in the 1st half of a close game as it will be in the second half of a blowout. It SHOULD NOT matter if the team that got bumped and lost the ball OOB is ahead or behind by 30 points.

Again, if you get a chance to read her full article, she talks about the difference between managing situations vs. managing calls. Managing situations, even if it goes against the "letter" of the rule, is not only expected, but encouraged. Managing calls, which is what is being discussed here, is strongly discouraged. Managing calls turns into manipulation.

Maybe the philosophy really is different in NCAA-M, or NBA. I would be curious to see if anyone can post anything in writing that verifies this philosophy. Or, could that philosophy be another addition to BillyMac's Myth list?

I agree totally with her. I believe in managing situations and NOT in managing calls. Im not advocating doing that in this OP either but I think on a borderline play where you have a chance to be right whether you choose option A)calling a foul or option B) not calling the foul, you let the "peripheral stuff" play a role. For example, I wanna get a block/charge play right all the time bc I PERSONALLY believe it is such an emotional play in which coaches and fans act out the most at, but if I have a play on the sideline similar to the play in the OP, this is not a play in which a coach could lose his cool over more than a block/charge EXCEPT in a rare case such as the OP by calling a foul on a guy's high scorer (the person in the OP was using this factor not me) and on top of his team getting beaten by 30 ( I would use this as a factor). When you can be right either way, why not be right for the team getting the crap beat out of them? Now that being said if you truly believe a whistle must be blown then go ahead, you would still be right and I would support it as an advisor or a partner, but my question would be what do you think would be best for THAT game in particular?

Remember as has been stated, this was a slight bump not a bump that knocked the player to the floor.

Dave Libby said it best I believe when he said you can call the same play two different ways at different times in the game and still be right. I believe for the most part this is correct.

This is coming in my CCA Manual

Philosophy of officiating women's basketball

2. Call obvious foulds and rough play

Basketball is a game of contact, both legal and illegal. Illegal contact that is obvious in nature must be called regardless of the score, time remaining or foul count. Obvious fouls take precedent over everything.

4. Call plays; manage situations

Fairness and balance must be maintained in each game that is played. An official must not succumb to managing call selection---that's when managing turns into manipulation

Well, which is it? You don't "agree totaly with her" if you do allow some of the peripheral stuff to play a role in how a foul call is made. You certainly don't agree if you can call the same play diferent ways at different times in the game, and still be right each time.