4th foul

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If both players "fouled equally", as you say, then why aren't you enforcing a double foul? Tell me again how you "sleep fine at night" knowing you saw a foul committed by a player, and purposely chose to ignore it with the sole purpose of making sure they don't foul out?

I've seen this theory stated by a number of officials, but I have yet to see any rule, case, or philosophy in writing from the NFHS or NCAA backing this theory. If A1 has 4 fouls, and they commit a foul, they're done. The only real reason I can see for an official not calling the 5th foul is because they don't have the guts to go over and tell the coach that player has fouled out.

Yea, it's a little harsh. But tell me again what rule, case, interp or memo you are following with this theory?

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.

[JRutledge]

I think it is out job to know as much about the game as possible. For example I called two carry/palming calls last Friday and the coach tried to imply that I called more than anyone else. My response was to him, "We have called 5 (palming) calls in this first half, and I called the last two." I did not hear much of anything from him after that.

If you know it better prepares you for if and when you call that 5th foul you are prepare to handle it. Also I feel that you should not change what you do, but you should be aware. Because that 5th foul better be good or this might be one of the plays they send to the supervisor. I would like the foul to be there, but then again, kids foul out all the time and I was not aware of this. I guess it really depends on who the player is that has the 4th foul and what his coach thinks of that kid.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

.......that 5th foul better be good.......

I've heard/read this numerous times and the main problem I have is that it infers that it is less important that the first 4 be "good" whatever that means.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I've heard/read this numerous times and the main problem I have is that it infers that it is less important that the first 4 be "good" whatever that means.

That is the way you see it. Like it or not, all fouls are not treated the same and all times of the game are not treated the same. And what a coach will send to a supervisor is not going to be the same. And if something helps you focus and make sure you do not make a mistake, I am all for it.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I've heard/read this numerous times and the main problem I have is that it infers that it is less important that the first 4 be "good" whatever that means.

Ummm, no. You inferred that. The statement, however, does not imply that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Ummm, no. You inferred that. The statement, however, does not imply that.

Agreed.

Peace

[just another ref]

infer: v. to hint, imply, suggest

If one states, specifically, that "The fifth foul should be a good one," I think most reasonable people would agree that it implies that the quality of the fifth foul is more important than the other four.

I personally have seen a player foul out and said/thought "I called a couple of cheap ones on him early." I find this just as distasteful as the fifth being less than a good one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

infer: v. to hint, imply, suggest

If one states, specifically, that "The fifth foul should be a good one," I think most reasonable people would agree that it implies that the quality of the fifth foul is more important than the other four.

I personally have seen a player foul out and said/thought "I called a couple of cheap ones on him early." I find this just as distasteful as the fifth being less than a good one.

When I say this, I want to make sure the 5th one is a good one. The four other fouls could have been good too. But that is in the past and I cannot worry about what I called before. I can only worry about what I am going to do or how I want to call things. A good example is 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. And yes, I might have called a couple of cheap ones earlier and I do not want to continue the mistake. I guess if someone says to you "They will remember the last minute of a game more than they will remember the other 31 minutes in the game..." that means to you that you screwed up the first 31 minutes, I have to call the last minute different?

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

infer: v. to hint, imply, suggest

If one states, specifically, that "The fifth foul should be a good one," I think most reasonable people would agree that it implies that the quality of the fifth foul is more important than the other four.

I personally have seen a player foul out and said/thought "I called a couple of cheap ones on him early." I find this just as distasteful as the fifth being less than a good one.

English. Learn it. Use it. Love it.

–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.


"The fifth foul should be a good one" is merely a statement. It implies nothing about the earlier four fouls. You have chosen to infer something about the earlier four fouls from the statement that simply is not there.

[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?

[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.

[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