All very good points from the panel.

I think we are digressing from the key point here. In my opinion the key point is this = we need to recognize when a team is trying to "take a foul." When this happens, we need to call the first foul. From the OP comments, it sounds like a foul had definitely been committed.

I don't care if they're trying to "take" a foul. If they actually commit a foul, I'll call it.

The OP does not sound like a foul to me. What normal offensive and defensive movements were hindered? The offense played through incidental contact, and if you call this a foul, you're penalizing the offense.

For the record, you should always call the first foul; that's a truism. The first contact, however, is not always the first foul.

I'll reiterate; the way I read the OP, if you call that foul you really need to call it intentional.

Coach I understand the game situation, but I didn't think you wanted to give them 2 FTs AND the ball back.

In the situation described I'm ok with a no call.

The thing I try to keep in mind in these situations is if I'm going to make sure that a disavantage situation occurs from contact before I blow the whistle, then my partner and I can't be jumping the gun on excessive contact = unsportsmanlike. If someone tries to take someone's head off or makes a dirty play then defiinitely call it as necessary, BUT in fairness I can't let a couple of reaching touches go as no calls based on the ball handler playing through it, only to then have my partner call unsportsmanlike for excessive contact as a kid in desperation makes a hard play on the ball to make sure its a turnover (if they get the ball) or illegal contact (if they miss).

I assume this is what coach B in the scenario is worried about. If you can pull an arm without a call, the next step beyond that "from a kids stand point" will be its need to be a full take down that is probably going to get called an unsportsmanlike. He's and probably his player are not thinking hmmm maybe he wasn't disadvantaged, they are concluding I can tear someone's arm off and its a no call but if I do anything else its over the line.

The easy thing to do is understand the situation and make sure the coaches and players understand it as you see it too.

I disagree. The kids knew how to play defense all game long, and presumably committed a few fouls along the way. I'm not going to bail a coach out when he has failed to coach his kids on how to execute the strategy properly.

Terrible advice which is directly counter to the stated position of the NFHS! :mad:

From the 2006-07 NFHS Points of Emphasis:

Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly.

Contact - Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

In theory and the printed rule book we are talking about something that isn't the case in reality. I know several assigners, D1 officials and varsity officials (myself included) who say get the first foul and stay out of trouble. Right or wrong, not calling the first foul could lead to an escalating situation. While I understand the theory behind not calling the first contact, I think it is rather risky. In my experience, everyone in the facility knows what is going on and not calling it because rule......... says......... isn't going to cut it. YMMV

The verbiage discussion is kind of off topic, but based on personal opinion. I don't know about anyone else, but the term doesn't matter when officials still don't call it. Marginal contact is something that comes from the NBA and I think that is why some resist using the term. <shrug> it doesn't really matter. What matters more than terms is actions by the officials.

In my experience, marginal contact comes up in conversation when someone feels a no-call is the best thing (not) to do. I was at a camp one time and Ronnie Nunn commented about a call I made. He said he thought it was marginal contact - he didn't think I should have called it. He was on the far end of the court. Zack Zarba, who was closer, said it was a good call. When those guys use those terms it kind of trickles down.

Aren't you arguing for two different things here? Are you saying we should get the first contact, and call it a foul, because that is what one team wants? I would disagree with that theory, and say that puts the other team at a decided disadvantage if they want to run out the clock. If that particular contact wouldn't have been a foul in the first half, then it shouldn't be at that point as well. Or are you saying we should call the first foul? Then I agree, but don't we call every foul throughout the game? ;)

Maybe I'm talking semantics, but your comments point out an important difference in my mind. Of course we should call the first foul. But I don't think we should call the first contact. To me, that's a big difference, and I don't think we should confuse the two words. I had a fellow official once tell me we should call that first contact, because if we don't, coaches and players think we've stopped officiating. I think it's exactly the opposite - by calling only contact a foul, we've stopped making judgements on what is incidental and what isn't, and by doing that have actually stopped officiating. By continuing to observe and pass on incidental contact, even though we know one team is trying to foul, we are still continuing to officiate.

That is exactly the position which the NFHS has published.

Well said.

Call the fouls. Ignore incidental contact. Be consistent.

Uh, oh. Nevada, Jurassic and I agree on something.

What's next? World peace? Dogs playing with cats? Yankee fans being civil? :eek:

You had me until here.

<font size =+3>We're always civil</font> <font size = -3>to other Yankee fans</font>.

And being human, we also have pity for Cubs fans.

I'm going to side with the camp that calls the foul right away. First of all, you can analyze the rulebook all you want. Some calls are based on the accepted practice of the last 50 years. I believe you can end a game on a sour note when not calling a foul when everyone expects it to be called. I'm not saying call a foul when there is no contactbut I'm saying that advantage/disadvantage isn't going to be used the same way at the end of the game if a team is trying to stop the clock.

Some of my partners have ignored contact in that situation. The perception was that they wanted to get the game over and were not willing to blow the whistle. Some of you are probably thinking that all I am worried about is what people think. No, but sometimes I believe the path of least resistance is best.