I totally agree that kids (heck, everyone) is responsible for their own behavior. In general, would you say that players react in frustration from only one play, or several plays over the course of the game? My answer is that frustration builds over time. Very, very infrequently will one play cause a player to "blow his top".

When contact occurs in a game that affects the play (and an advantage is gained) and a foul is not called, players assume that a penalty will not be enforced and continue that behavior/action later in the game. Physical play ultimately escalates into situtations that become a problem - hard fouls, intentional fouls, unsportsman-like plays, etc. It is usually a result of not blowing the whistle earlier in the game.

If officials blow the whistle and establish early what contact is a foul and what is not, then the players will adjust (or sit on the bench after fouling out). When officials are rather passive and let too much contact occur between players, that is when problems build and become a problem later in the game. That is when officials, by their lack of game control, create the circumstances that often lead to problems in games.

I hope you are reading this in the moderate tone that I intend to communicate. Too many times posts on this board are extrapolated to their extremes and viewed in a "black or white" perspective. I'm not advocating that passing on minor contact will lead to a fight in the 4th qtr., nor do I think that "the more fouls called in a game, the better"....I believe that, in general, officials could, and should, call more fouls than we do in games. It will make for a better game and will definitely lead to less problems (and phone calls from assignors) in the future.

I might be an "extrapolator" here but, for the sake of everyone, hear we would be safe to say that by "too much contact" you mean ILLEGAL contact, correct?? Cause I know in the leagues I work there is a lot of very physical contact and it is still legal. So to say "too much contact" would not be correct, but if I am reading too much into it I apologize. I just don't want people on here thinking that mere fact that there is a lot of contact that it should be a foul. Too much contact is not a foul, illegal contact is a foul.

WOW!!! Am I becoming the new Jurassic cause I just feel like this is something he would say?????? ha

Except this is something you've said many times and I just don't agree with you that it's some kind of serious problem.

It's the fans who think we need to "blow our whistles more," except when we do against their team and then we need to "let them play."

In the end it does not matter what we call. We cannot win, EVER!!!
 

Completely agree with the last statement. ;)

Peace

You forgot that if we don't call more fouls (for their team), someone's gonna get hurt out there! ;)

Well said!

You must have been at my games this weekend?
 

Rich - next time you're in town c'mon up and say hi! ;)

I am so tired of this.......

The major problem with that philosophy imo is that an official and a player may have completely different views on the same play as to whether a foul had occurred. The player feels the contact and almost automatically thinks "foul". The official sees the contact, and if he is competent and experienced, he then judges whether that contact actually was illegal. Iow, you may have separate and disparate views as to whether an advantage was actually gained.

Officials are neutral; players and coaches aren't. And that's why the person with the whistle has to prevail, no matter what anyone else in the gym might think.

I agree again with JR.

The best example of this was the playoffs this year in my Regional Tournament. There was a team that I had multiple times that every time something happen they thought we should have a foul. Then every time we called a foul on them they complained. We called a lot of fouls and this team was not ever happy. And as usual they never complain about fouls we call in their favor.

I agree that we could call more fouls, but that is based on a lot of factors. And if players cannot control their emotions or their behavior because they think something is happening, then they either need to learn the game or learn to adjust.

Peace

This is such a complimentary response to my previous post that I am ashamed. :o I can only take this opportunity to apologize for my prior crankiness. :(
While I did disagree with your stated position, I certainly could have phrased my response in a more respectful and hopefully discussion worthy manner. I'll aim for that in the future.
In summary, after about 15 years of doing this, I come down on the side of JR, Rich, and Rut. I believe that we need to allow some contact and not whistle everything in order for the game to flow and be enjoyable for the players and spectators. The stronger players and teams can handle it. The challenge is to recognize when the players are unable to deal with the level of contact that we are accustomed to permitting and to adjust and call those games tighter. I firmly believe that by over-calling the officials can ruin a game very quickly. It takes much longer for an under-called game to get out of control, so if the officials are sharp and can come in with a few timely whistles to keep the tempers in check, then the proper balance can be achieved.

It seems appropriate to offer this comment in this thread and let others chime in with their thoughts.

One of my colleagues whom I consider a mentor told me last year that one thing which separates the top-notch officials from the rest is that they aren't afraid to let a game get a little out of control. He then expounded upon that comment by explaining that the game of basketball is best when it is contested on the edge. The top officials have developed a good sense of what that point is and can let the players go right up to there without having problems. Of course, this can only be experienced by having the action cross the line a few times. That is when true game management is tested and the officials must be very sharp to bring it back quickly. In the end, he shared with me that certain officials will never make it to the top because they are simply afraid of having the game get beyond their control and so call it tighter than the players involved can handle. This displeases the competitors and they don't come away with the feeling that win or lose they were in a great battle.
In summary, what I took from his advice was that there is certainly an art to finding the right balance, and one must be willing to take the risk to get there, but once the game reaches that point if the official is strong enough to control it, it will be a fantastic contest.

Well said imo also.

Of course it helps when I agree philosophically with a statement like that too.:)

BTaylor did say it well..."Too much contact is not a foul. Illegal contact is a foul."

Please refer to the first sentence of paragraph #2 of my post:

"When contact occurs in a game that affects the play (and an advantage is gained) and a foul is not called, players assume that a penalty will not be enforced and continue that behavior/action later in the game."

But in whose eyes is that advantage gained?

The player will invariably feel that the contact affected the play and put him/her at a disadvantage. The official...not so much so.

One side is naturally biased; the other side can't afford to be biased.

That's the flaw in your reasoning imo.

Exactly. How many times do we see a player try to squeeze through two defenders, there's contact, and the player and coach wonder why there's no foul? There's contact and *they* feel it affected the play, but the reality is that both defenders are legal and there simply wasn't space to go through. And we have either nothing or a traveling violation as a result.

I'm not much impressed with the impassioned cries of "the game's too physical" and "the officials don't call enough" -- because of all the gnashing of teeth done about this, it's only ever on fouls not called against the other team. Or it's by mediots who are paid to stir up trouble.