4th foul

[Ignats75]

Opening GV weekend. Neutral Site Game. Home team SG is one of the best players in the county returning this year. Play is sloppy as HT, who is clearly better, is playing down to the level of their opponents. Super Star is also not having a very good game. Lazy on defense. Picks up three stupid fouls in the first half.

Late in 3Q with HT up by ~20 points. Superstar reaches from behind opponent and tried to tomahawk the ball out of her hands. Easy call. TWEEET. As I start to walk to the table she glares at me, stomps her foot and in a disrespectful manner says, "I can't believe you would call that on ME!" Tweeet! WHACK! bye-bye. Thats number 5.

I believe there is currently a contract out on me from her family.

[Adam]

Good call. Hopefully she'll learn her lesson before she gets to college.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Note that were not talking about ignoring a foul...but who to call it on when two players foul at about the same time. In the event of two players committing a foul at the same time and short of calling a multiple foul (which is NOT advised by anyone that I've ever heard), the official must decide which of the players to call a foul on. While you will not find a case play or rule telling you to not call it on the one with 4, you will also not find a rule or case supporting calling it on the one with 4 (vs. the other player) either. So, the official is basically left to make their own choice by whatever criteria they wish. Maybe you tag the guy that's been a jerk all game. Absent that, maybe you tag the one with fewer fouls (if you happen to know that). It doesn't really matter which one you tag with the foul by whatever criteria you deem valid. We have several times in a game where the play is 50/50 and you either call the foul or you don't call the foul. This is just another of those choices.

This is the main part of my disagreement. So, what criteria do you use if this situation happens in the first 2 minutes of the game? You don't have any extra information to deal with, such as which player is a jerk, which one has 4 fouls, which team is way ahead, which fans would give you a hard time, etc., etc., etc. So, let's see...maybe you would use the criteria of "Which player fouled first"? Hmm...there's an idea.

Now, what rule, case, interp, memo, etc. do you reference that says you can then change the way you make that call late in the game? So, instead of simply making the decision of "Which player fouled first?", you can now bring other factors into the decision-making process?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fixed it.

Shut up.

I'm not overreacting now, am I?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fixed it.

Thank you.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is the main part of my disagreement. So, what criteria do you use if this situation happens in the first 2 minutes of the game? You don't have any extra information to deal with, such as which player is a jerk, which one has 4 fouls, which team is way ahead, which fans would give you a hard time, etc., etc., etc. So, let's see...maybe you would use the criteria of "Which player fouled first"? Hmm...there's an idea.

Now, what rule, case, interp, memo, etc. do you reference that says you can then change the way you make that call late in the game? So, instead of simply making the decision of "Which player fouled first?", you can now bring other factors into the decision-making process?

If I'm not certain which foul was first, I'm going to use every piece of information at my disposal to make the decision. Early in the game I'll have a different amount of information than later in the game.

If there's a kid who's been a critical piece in keeping the game in control - a guy who seems to keep hot-heads under control and contributes to the game flow who is involved in a foul along with a guy who doesn't contribute those things, and I can't tell which of them fouled first, I'm probably giving it to the second guy.

Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the information I use to make the call.

Nothing said in this thread is any different than that.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

If I'm not certain which foul was first, I'm going to use every piece of information at my disposal to make the decision. Early in the game I'll have a different amount of information than later in the game.

If there's a kid who's been a critical piece in keeping the game in control - a guy who seems to keep hot-heads under control and contributes to the game flow who is involved in a foul along with a guy who doesn't contribute those things, and I can't tell which of them fouled first, I'm probably giving it to the second guy.

Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the information I use to make the call.

Nothing said in this thread is any different than that.

Actually, I'm trying to say it's different.

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but Mary Struckhoff came out with a memo on the NCAA-W site that addresses this specific topic of game management and preventative officiating. As officials, we are to call plays, and manage situations. The difference being "situations" usually happen during dead balls. An example would be a sub running out on the floor without reporting to the table first. By strict reading of the rule, it's an automatic T. But in the practical sense, we usually stop them and send them back to the table to report. Or, if there's a sub waiting at the table, and they run out as soon as the ball is dead before they are beckoned on, we usually beckon them on "after the fact". In both cases, what the player did was worthy of a penalty by strict reading of the rules, but it has become expected of us, as officials, to manage the situation and still adhere to the "spirit of the rule" vs. the "letter of the rule". The difference though, is we are still to call live ball plays by the rules. A foul is a foul. A violation is a violation. At any time during the game. "An official must not succumb to managing call selection — that’s when managing turns into manipulation.” And, even though I'd like to take credit for that phrase, it comes right out of the CCA Manual.

Now, I understand there are differences between NFHS, NCAA-W, and NCAA-M. But this is the first time I've seen anything like this put in writing, at any of the levels. I happen to agree with the philosophy. I would like to see if there is a different philosophy in writing someplace at any of the other levels. If not, then, "The big dogs in my area do it this way" isn't good enough for me. Then again, if your assignor wants it done that way, then by all means, do it according to the boss's wishes.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where did I say I did not care? This why you really need to read the comments and stop assuming (implying) what I meant by my comments.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

..... I do not care if the first foul of the game was terrible, but the last foul of the game with the game on the line better be there and not as bad as the first.

When one says "I do not care" it implies that that person does not care.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When one says "I do not care" it implies that that person does not care.

I know this is hard for you to understand. You live in fantasy land and think everything is always perfect when it comes to the rules or the job you do on the court.

I guess I see your point.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know this is hard for you to understand. You live in fantasy land and think everything is always perfect when it comes to the rules or the job you do on the court.

I guess I see your point.

Peace

What is hard for me to understand is when a guy contradicts himself in back to back posts, then, when asked about it, dismisses it all with another post like the one above, which says, basically, nothing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is the main part of my disagreement. So, what criteria do you use if this situation happens in the first 2 minutes of the game? You don't have any extra information to deal with, such as which player is a jerk, which one has 4 fouls, which team is way ahead, which fans would give you a hard time, etc., etc., etc. So, let's see...maybe you would use the criteria of "Which player fouled first"? Hmm...there's an idea.

Now, what rule, case, interp, memo, etc. do you reference that says you can then change the way you make that call late in the game? So, instead of simply making the decision of "Which player fouled first?", you can now bring other factors into the decision-making process?

I was working a game not too long ago where I had a game between two ranked teams and each had a player on the team is and was going D1 at some point. Well the Blue team had a senior on the team that was graduating and going to a Big Ten school the next year. The White team had a player that was an underclassman but will be going to a D1 school soon considering that he is ranked high in the country and heavily recruited.

Well in this hot match up I called a foul on the Blue player that was their star. He had scored like 30+ points at the time and I called his 4th foul that was obvious. Not two minutes later, I am the lead official and I call the 5th foul on this "star" and you could make a very small case that one of his teammates was around and fouled too. But it was clear to me that the "star" caused the foul first and created the most contact as well. I knew I just called this kid's 5th foul and reported it as such. But before I could get to the table, one of the Blue captains (who was in the same area) wanted me to call the foul on him. And even before I got to the table, the coach was complaining that his "star" was not the one that fouled, but the other kid fouled instead. Of course I never changed my mind and I was not taking back a foul for those reasons, but you would have thought this was a life or death issue for the Blue team. The captain followed me and was pleading with me to change the call. So much so that my partner (which I was not happy with at all and I have no idea why he just did not just put the ball in play considering I did not hold up play for a conversation) sends players to the bench. There was this like 3 way conversation going on with me in the middle about who this foul truly was on. If you would have seen this play on tape, there would have been no question who fouled and why a foul was called. I even had to talk to my partner later about stopping the game, because he just made the situation worse (IMO). This was not the first foul of the game or even the third foul of the game. This was the 5th foul and the Blue team knew they might lose in this very high scoring game with their best player that is going D1 the following year is out. The score ended up being like 97-92 and the Blue team won the game. BTW, the White team's star fouled out too in the game and I called that foul as well. I knew it, but this foul was not as "obvious" as the other one to everybody and I took heck for it on some level, but the team's coach knew me very well and how we were calling the game he did not give me crap, but the fans did.

Now both players fouled out clearly, but the focus was on those fouls no matter how I felt about them. My point in telling this story is to illustrate you can feel whatever you like about the 5th foul, if it is the right circumstance they are going to question that call openly. If I recall, that is why we have the non-calling official go and tell the coach their player fouled out right? So mechanically we do not treat that foul the same, so why do we want to act now like that call should not be there and not cause any controversy as much as we have control over this part of the game?

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is hard for me to understand is when a guy contradicts himself in back to back posts, then, when asked about it, dismisses it all with another post like the one above, which says, basically, nothing.

You took two completely different statements and tried to marry them together. That is not a contradiction unless I made the same statement in the same post or topic. You do not understand because you do not know the difference between a statement and a larger context. Not caring about what I called before does not mean I am going to call the last foul totally incorrectly as you have implied. I simply said that what I did before does not matter if the last foul is bad. I stand by that statement and just like teams do not focus on the first few minutes of the game the same way they do at the end of the game.

A good example of this was the Big 12 Championship football game. There was a play in the 4th Quarter that was probably a bad call and the play stood and helped result Nebraska to take the lead based on the field position and events after this call. But what was the focus of this game and the outcome? What happen on what appeared to be the very last play of the game and when the play was reviewed the media, coach and players focused on this "last play" and you almost heard nothing about the bad call early in the quarter which had in my opinion a much bigger impact on the possible outcome. And as a result of what happen on the last play, conspiracy theories have been suggested, official's judgments have been in question and the entire BCS situation has been called into question. But you hear nothing about how Texas might have lost the game and why the officials that were so in on the fix "screwed" Texas in an earlier play of the game. Same applies to what we are talking about here.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What is hard for me to understand is when a guy contradicts himself in back to back posts, then, when asked about it, dismisses it all with another post like the one above, which says, basically, nothing.

You'll get used to it eventually.

[tadams]

Back to the topic.....

So I am new to basketball, have done a ton of baseball. The original post was do you treat the 5th foul differently. I read all the posts and watched this thread wonder. I have heard "it better be good", "nothing cheap", give it to someone else if you can. I understand game management is always an issue. Maybe basketball is different but come on guys have some balls. As an official you are there to bring fairness to the game and apply the rules. Any vetern official will say to a rookie that the most important thing to learn as an official is to be consistant. By not calling the foul you are intentionally being unfair to the other team. Shame on you. If your standards of fouls change as the game progresses you deserve the grief you get. If it was a foul you would have called on a player with 0 fouls it has to be a foul on a player with 4.

Let the comments fly.

[M&M Guy]

Jeff - you mean you had the guts to make the proper call, instead of the one the coach and players wanted you to call?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell 'ya.

(Good job.)