Here's a switch

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The rules are basically the same. Clemente's undetected foul, however, would not have been an intentional IMO. He fouled the dribbler across his arms in an "attempt" to reach for the ball. The reason, IMO, that it was not called are in order:

1. The Trail was straight-lined and didn't see the contact
2. The contact was marginal and did not hinder the ball-handler

Is it correct to say this falls somewhere within the "advantage/disadvantage" philosophy? Seeing the play through? This is my reasoning on the play. Nothing really impeded the XU player from completing his dribble across half court and past his player setting the screen nearer the 3 pt arc.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Is it correct to say this falls somewhere within the "advantage/disadvantage" philosophy?

Nope. Use the "incidental contact" definition right out of rule 4(both NCAA & NFHS). Jalons already gave you the NCAA cite--4-40; NFHS is 4-27.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope. Use the "incidental contact" definition right out of rule 4(both NCAA & NFHS). Jalons already gave you the NCAA cite--4-40; NFHS is 4-27.

Got it. Thanks.

[bainsey]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I was linked here. (Thanks, grunewar.)

DLH17, I would have passed on it, too. Personally, I'm not sold that that initial contact was missed, either. While there was contact, the dribbler didn't appear to be hindered by it, and we all know the reason for the contact.

I've seen coaches get mad at situations like this before. I'm sure it's happened to me once or twice. We all know why the K-State coach got mad, but I think that's part of the bigger problem.

Should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard?

Some people think not to call this foul is "unfair." How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard?

Some people think not to call this foul is "unfair." How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

I actually worked a game with a good friend who is a great official and works at a much higher level than me, and we had almost this exact situation come up. His position was we need to be aware that a team is wanting to foul, and "get" that first contact as soon as it happens so it doesn't escalate to a harder foul that may need to be called intentional. His feeling was we shouldn't appear to stop officiating at the end of the game.

My feeling is by simply "getting" that first contact, we actually have stopped officiating. Officiating is having to make those many decisions about what contact is incidental and what contact is a foul. If one team is trying to foul, and the other team kind of stands there, waiting to be fouled, then yes we can probably lower our threshold a little. But if that other team is purposely playing hard trying to avoid being fouled, then we have continue to officiate by making the same decisions about whether that contact is a foul at that point in the game as in the first half.

Don't think of it as "unfair" to the team trying to foul that we may rule some contact incidental, and they have to keep trying. It is just as "unfair" to the team trying to run time off the clock and we stop it for a marginal play that wouldn't have been a foul earlier in the game. Should we know one team is trying to foul? Absolutely, but not to change what we call, but rather to know and be aware so it doesn't surprise us when it happens.

In the context of the X/KS St. game, the T might tell us that he was straight-lined and wished he could've called that first contact. But my guess is he did see it, and chose to pass because the dribbler got passed the defender easily. If that exact play had happened in the first half, I don't think we would be talking about a "missed" call.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the context of the X/KS St. game, the T might tell us that he was straight-lined and wished he could've called that first contact. But my guess is he did see it, and chose to pass because the dribbler got passed the defender easily. If that exact play had happened in the first half, I don't think we would be talking about a "missed" call.

The one commentator I've heard since that I agreed with (regardless of whether I felt a foul should have been called as was) was Digger Phelps, who said he always coached his players to make a play "through" the ball in that situation. If Clemente had played "through" the ball it would have required significant enough contact to "force" a foul call. Takes all the question out of it without the player having to worry about being called for an intentional foul.

[Larks]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If that exact play had happened in the first half, I don't think we would be talking about a "missed" call.

Totally agree. This play is a case study for both coaches and refs. I also submit this play is tough because it has the crew spread, somewhat stacked (both behind and across) and on the run. If it's not obvious, I would argue 95% of the top 96 would have passed. I think I would have as well.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Should we accept this belief that the defense can stop the clock anytime they want, just because they're behind? Should we reward the defense with breaking the rules, just because they trail on the scoreboard?

Some people think not to call this foul is "unfair." How can it be unfair to the defensive players, when they're the ones committing the infraction?

My philosophy is slightly different, and depends on how the offense is playing it. In this situation, if the offense has resigned themselves to getting fouled, I'll call the first contact quickly. If, however, they are trying to play through contact and are able to do so, make the defense commit an actual foul.

[just another ref]

The coach was on one of the morning shows this morning. If I heard correctly, the plan was for the defender to "bearhug" the dribbler. Apparently no concern of the intentional call? He went on to say how the first guy missed the foul, and the second came in "a little too late." He complimented the offensive player for getting the shot up under the circumstances.