4th foul
 

I realize we won't find it anywhere in the manuals but how aware should we be of the player's and their foul situations? Do you take notice when a kid picks up his/her 4th not wanting to give them a cheap 5th? Or do you go about your modus operandi as if that is part of the game and a foul is a foul regardless of how many the kid has?

I assume I will get both answers here so for those who do take note how do you go about it? If the team has a scoreboard that indicates the player's fouls I have been able to take note there, however when there isn't a scoreboard with such features how do you wise sagacious veterans go about knowing?

I'm just a basketball rookie myself but I try not to make any of my calls cheap. :)

At my modest level of officiating (2nd yr HS vars) I'm not concerned with player foul situations. I am aware when team fouls hit 6 but I don't concern myself with individual situations.

It seems like at higher levels (certainly big time D1) this would be a consideration though.

The last thing I have time or mental capacity for is keeping track of how many fouls each individual player has.

The only time I let it affect my game is when I do notice it, if there is an occasion where a certain player has already been whistled for 3 or more fouls, and he/she is involved in a play where there is a foul, but he/she and his/her teammate both fouled at the same time, I might be more inclined to assign the foul to the other teammate. But that rarely happens.

So, what do you do when that player who had 4 fouls hits the game-winning shot because you allowed them to stay in the game by assigning the foul to a different player?

I give him a high-five, pat him on the butt and say "great shot!" ;)

I don't even think twice about it, because both players fouled equally, I just happened to assign it to the player with fewer fouls, so I'll sleep just fine at night.

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?

At a recent 8th grade game of my daughters, where her team had 6 players and the other had 5. I noticed at halftime the officials looked over the scorebook to find out how many fouls the players had.
in the second half which was a blowout home team up by 25 over my daughters team the R got upset at the coach complaining about the fouls not being called. Very Obvious! after some heated discussion between the Coach, Ref, and Some fans, it was said very loud that they were trying to keep everyone in the game. They then got p*ssed and said " okay we'll call everything."
Interestingly the game flowed much better and ended up being played 4 on 4 at the end.
I would suggest not to do this, but call the obvious fouls. Be consistant in what you call, not adjusting to the play. Let the players adjust to the calls. That is the only way they learn.

fiasco and M&M Guy:

Please read the definition of a multiple foul.

MTD, Sr.

Let's see, what do you guys call it around here....game management?

4.19.11

"A multiple foul is a situation in which two or more teammates commit personal fouls against the same opponent at approximately the same time."

p.s. that was my 100th post....very anti-climatic!

Mark,

Please read the definition of a legal screen.

fiasco

I'm assuming you meant multiple foul.

You can easily apply advantage/disadvantage here. If the fouls are equal (ie, two players hitting the arm of an offensive player attempting a shot), no more advantage has been gained than if only one player had hit the arm.

Now, if you have a defensive player hitting the arm while another defensive player is pushing in the back, then, yes, I would call a multiple foul.

Calling a multiple foul in the first scenario, especially when that foul causes a player to foul out, wouldn't fly with my commissioner. He'd mark be down for being over officious, even if I did use the excuse that some rules junkies on a message board really really wanted me to call a multiple foul.

Sorry, Mark - you're right.

I'm just getting a little misty-eyed and couldn't see what I was typing.

So back to how you sagacious officials surreptitiously go about obtaining the information on the number of fouls a player has? Do any of you have any bits of knowledge you've collected over the years on how to do so?

On the list of top-10 things to worry about, this is number 20.

I do try to be aware so we get the player replaced if / when s/he commits the fifth foul.

And, like someone else mentioned, if I can't tell which foul came first, and one player has 4, and that player is the star player on a team losing by a lot late in the game, I might try to not rub salt in the wound by giving the foul to the other player.

It may not be in the book, but this awareness is clearly preferred by some assigners and vets who have influence over assignments.

That's all cool, and I don't have a problem with anything you've said in this post.

However, this brings us back to the real-world issue. B1 and B2 both foul A1 at approximately the same time. B1 has 4 fouls, B2 has 1. It looks like B2 fouled first, so you ignore B1's foul, since it wasn't intentional or flagrant, and report the foul on B2. No problem here. Where I have the problem is you appear to be saying you see B1 foul first, but you choose to give the foul to B2 just to keep B1 in the game. Is that correct?

? Where are you seeing this? If I said that it must have been a mis-type.

So true

From your post:
You only mentioned that the number of fouls each player had determined which player got assigned the foul. Why should that matter?

???

You said:

I said:

So I don't see what you're getting at.

Ok, here's what I'm getting at. Going back to your first post in this thread, which I quoted again, you mentioned you would charge or not charge a foul on a player solely based on the number of fouls they currently have. You also then mentioned this is called "game management". What I'm trying to determine is under what specific circumstances this would come into play for you.

If you would not call a multiple foul (which I would not as well), then you need to determine which player fouled first. Obviously if the player with the lesser number fouled first, they get charged with the foul. Bob mentioned a specific scenario where you are truly unsure which player fouled, and the game is decided, you might charge the player with the lesser number. But if you are saying you see the player with the larger number foul first, but because there's another player close by that can be charged instead to avoid fouling someone out, I do have a big problem with that. That is manipulation, rather than management.

Based on the merit of this quote alone (all other posts aside) I would agree that this is a resonable way to determine one from the other.

Good post (with proper grammar). ;)

I agree.

I am efforting

I'm not saying that, and I never said that.

fiasco:

What does the definition of a legal screen have to do with this thread?

MTD, Sr.

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.

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

Seriously ...
 

We've been told this in our little corner of Connecticut, but first we check to make sure that all the doors are closed, all the windows are covered, and then we're told in a very, very quiet whisper.

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

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

Agreed.

Peace

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

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.

The flaw in this logic is that if too many of these "terrible" calls are made early in the game which you "do not care" about, conceivably they could keep the game from being on the line on the last call.

Beginning, end,one is not much more important than the other...........in theory.............which is all we are discussing here.

Exactly.

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. I said there will be more focus on the 5th foul. You do not have to agree with that, but in my experience what happens later in a game is always put more focus on. And the importance of the player to their team, the more they will focus on it. And if you think they the last few fouls of the game are not important, then why does the media focus on the last second shot in highlights? What was wrong with the first minute of the game? Why only show highlights of the end of the game when the other parts of the game are just as important? But my logic is flawed?

Peace

Agreed in theory. In practice, though, it's different.

Exactly. The ideal is "five good fouls". The reality is that of the five, the last one is the one matters most and that everybody will remember.

Ok, good. I was simply reacting to your original comment.

Fixed it.

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. ;)

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

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?

Shut up.

I'm not overreacting now, am I? :p

Thank you. :p

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.

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. :D

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.

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. :D

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

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

You'll get used to it eventually.

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.

:eek: Let the comments fly.

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. :D

(Good job.)

Where in this thread did anyone say to not call a foul that should have been called?

If there's a foul, call it. If two players foul, determine which was first. At times, other factors may have to help you decide which was first.

Nowhere did anyone advocate not calling a 5th foul if one was warranted.

tadams,

When taken in context, without reading any sinister intent into them, the statements that have been made are true.

The fifth foul is the one people will remember, and the one people will assign the greatest importance to, which means it is the one that will be on the video your assigner gets. So absolutely, the fifth foul should be a "good one".

Nobody is suggesting that we call the fifth foul any differently than the first four. The first four fouls should be "good ones" too! But the fifth one is the biggie. And if you are the sort of official who tries to focus or bear down more when its really important, that's the moment.

Now the argument about giving the fifth foul to another player. If A1 gets fouled by multiple defenders, and its the sort of play where at any other point in the game you would simply pick one of the culprits and give him the foul...there is a school of thought that says you should consciously pick the kid who doesn't already have four fouls. How does that equate to having no balls? :confused:

Good is a relative term. The fifth foul should be good. Certainly. But good relative to what, if not the other four fouls? This implies that it is less important that the other fouls be good.

Okay, JAR, see if you can follow me here...

Exactly which words, which phrases in the statement "The fifth foul should be good" imply anything about the first four fouls? Yes, the word "good" is a relative term, it implies a comparison. But the implied comparison is only between a good or bad fifth foul.

The statement you are criticizing does not, in fact, imply anything at all about the first four fouls. What you have chosen to infer from that statement, well that's your doing.

Have you ever had a foul you've called been one you wish you could have back because in hindsight you maybe shouldn't have called it? You want to make sure the 5th foul on a player isn't one of those.

I never suggested otherwise. But then again I forgot where I am writing this response. :D

Peace

Actually this is what the OP said. He did not suggest anything about treating it differently. He said do you take notice when a player gets their 4th foul. Here are his comments below.


This is why people are saying you guys are "implying" what was said. I do not recall saying anything about not calling a foul or calling it on the wrong player. I will say that there are often fouls where we have to choose a player. That involves judgment and if there is a situation where you do not know for sure, you pick one. How people come to that conclusion is always going to be different from one person to another. Some will say pick the least of the two that will not cause the most trouble. Others say pick the problem child. But I will say I am not calling a multiple foul that is for sure. ;) And you and JAR have not shown any comment where someone said not to call a foul. Actually all they said was "make it be there." One thing I have figured out, what is considered a "good call" is based on a lot of judgment and personal feelings. What I may think is good, you may think is bad. There is never going to be a way to close the gap. Because I might think most of your fouls are terrible and even if you call the 5th foul to your liking, I may not like any of the other fouls, while you thought you were calling the right things. All of this is subjective and always will be on some level.

Peace

BITS, you're insisting on a purely logical sense of implication, when in fact most people rely on a looser notion known as "conversational implicature." The latter explains, for example, why your wife might be justifiably upset if you began introducing her as your "first wife" (assuming you've had just one!).

Nothing follows logically about second or third wives, but everyone would (reasonably) draw the inference.

At this point we agree. Unless I had had multiple wives, and I was with the first one at that moment, there is no reason to say it like that. And since I'm the sort of guy who likes to say stuff like that just to mess with people, I guarantee you I would be implying something. But whether or not you "get" what I'm implying depends on your ability to infer what I'm implying. It's a safe bet my wife would get the implication, however, and what I'd "get" after that would be pain. Lots of pain. ;)

Are you guys being pedantic? :cool:

The promotion of fairness and treating the rules with respect means to be consistant. If a foul is committed then a foul needs to be called... dont be afraid if it is the fifth. Do what is right, not what is easy. In respect to not having any balls, just dont be timid into making the call. You will be much more apt to get yourself on the highlight film with the respective governing body by favoring one team then by making a tough call.


Please no one take offense to my statements, I am not trying to call anyone out. I am just sharing my perspective of the posts I have read and my philosophy on game management. In practice, as you all know relate, that third strike is tough to call when it is curve ball glancing a corner and it is the 4th hitter. Now the nineth hitter, no problem... nobody expects him to get on anyway. ;)

It might be easier not to take offense if you didn't imply those you disagree with have no balls. And it's not about whether it's tough to call, it's about ensuring it's the right call.

The point is simple. The fifth foul is going to be more scrutinized, plain and simple, because it's the proverbial straw. While we always want to make sure we have the right call, and we never want to call a phantom foul; it's even more crucial on the final foul. Like it or not, it's how it is.

It's more like the difference between the first strike in the first inning on your proverbial cleanup hitter verses the third strike in the bottom of the 9th with two outs.

I am believing we are going to make the same call on the play at hand. Hopefully for me it is because I have been consistant in my application of the rules and for you that you feel ensured that it is the right call. :)

The fact that this thread repeatedly refers specifically to the fifth foul, as opposed to fouls in general, still indicates that the fifth may be considered to be worthy of different consideration from the first four.

Consider this. If a player picks up two quick fouls early in the game, the third foul now becomes the one that "better be a good one" if it happens soon afterward.

All this is further complicated when some fans/coaches/officials bring up the "star player" as part of the equation of what is or is not a "good foul."

Bottom line is that I see all this discussion as ripe to be misconstrued.

"Didja see on the officiating board? Those guys said they won't call the fifth foul on the star unless he draws blood! I knew something funny was going on."

Don't ask. Don't tell.

I've read your post three times now. I still have no clue what you're getting at. But I don't really care. I gave a kid his fifth foul tonight. It was a good one. So were the other four.

So you treated all five alike. I'm all for that.

I fouled out a player tonight as well. And when I called that foul, I made sure it was there. Just like I made sure every other call I made that night near the end of the game was there. And no I do not treat all parts of the game the same, because they are not treated the same by everyone participating. But then again I have been told I have pretty good judgment, so it is not hard for me to focus near the end of the game and call what is truly there instead of what might not be there or is terrible. But that is me, it may not be you.

Peace

Why, are you anti-pedantic? :D

Sometimes a well-placed distinction permits people to see that an apparent disagreement is really about different concepts, which allows both sides to be right about their own concept. Then everybody wins. :)

I fouled out several players last night. Wasn't aware, until after the fact, that any of the players had four. Nobody complained on any of them. So, did I make a point of making sure the fifth fouls were "good ones?" No. It just took care of itself, as it should.

All I can say is: Huh?:)

And I knew last night and it has been an issue in the past. So what changed by using your logic? Absolutely nothing. And that is the point. ;)

Peace

What, specifically, has been an issue?

Have you been reading this thread?
 

Do not worry about it. Do what you do and I will do what I do. ;)

Peace

Just Like That "Guns Don't Kill People..." Saying ...
 

Officials don't foul out players. Players foul out.

Just tryin' to speak the language. It's a challenge.

Just don't use the word "baseline". I made that mistake once and I'm still in physical therapy. :eek: