Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[Jay R]

I'd be curious about where others stand on this. RockyRoad & BTaylor for example?

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jay R

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.

Just like we want the first foul of the game to be a no brainer & the 5th on bigs to be a quality call... ya gotta know your EOG situations! If they are trying to "take" a foul, why not give it to em?

I think these things fall under the category of Game Management.

Ok, crucify me now. lol

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jay R

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.

I may disagree with the Big 3 on this, but I'm with you as long as both teams are expecting it. IOW, if the the team with the ball is willing to accept being fouled in this situation, I'll usually call first contact.

However, no one on that side of the discussion has addressed the following issue:

Why would you penalize the offensive team just because the defense is trying to take a foul? A is trying to complete the game within the rules, and is actually playing through minor contact that truly isn't affecting anything. The OP is a classic example, where calling the foul takes away a legitimate and legally earned layup opportunity for team A. You're willing to bend the rules because "Team B wants it"? The game doesn't get changed to touch football just because one team is trying to foul.

I've seen the phrase, "why not give them what they want?" Well, because Team A doesn't want it, and Team A is right by rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Just like we want the first foul of the game to be a no brainer & the 5th on bigs to be a quality call... ya gotta know your EOG situations! If they are trying to "take" a foul, why not give it to em?

Again, because team is trying to avoid the foul, and they are succeeding by rule. Why does team B suddenly get to change the rules?

And for the record, I'm not in the "make the first one a good one" or "make sure everyone in the gym agrees with the 5th foul" camp. If a player gets 1 foul or 5 fouls in my game, I want all of them to be quality calls.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We're always civil to other Yankee fans.

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

You had me until here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

From the 2006-07 NFHS Points of Emphasis:

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.

Sooooooo.......

I take it that some of you say t'hell with how the NFHS rulesmakers have told us to handle this play. You feel that your own personal idea of the way the rule should be called is a much better idea than those ol' silly monkey rulesmakers.

Interesting.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, because team is trying to avoid the foul, and they are succeeding by rule. Why does team B suddenly get to change the rules?

The rules dont change... the GAME does. If there's no contact, I've got nothing.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And for the record, I'm not in the "make the first one a good one" or "make sure everyone in the gym agrees with the 5th foul" camp. If a player gets 1 foul or 5 fouls in my game, I want all of them to be quality calls.

I can dig it Snaqs, to each his or her own, but its working for me & my progression.

I believe having quality calls each time we pop is a common goal for us all. But when they foul out I want it to be a high certainty call.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sooooooo.......

I take it that some of you say t'hell with how the NFHS rulesmakers have told us to handle this play. You feel that your own personal idea of the way the rule should be called is a much better idea than those ol' silly monkey rulesmakers.

Interesting.

Early in the 1st Q B1 is guarding the dribbler, A1 in the b/c. B1 grabs A1s arm in an attempt to steal the ball... FOUL.

Same sitch but its late in the game & Team B is trailing by 6... FOUL.
---------------------------------------------------

Early in the 1st Q B1 is guarding the dribbler, A1 in the b/c. B1 grabs A1s arm... Intentional Foul.

Same sitch but its late in the game & Team B is trailing by 6... Intentional Foul.


Whats the problem? And how is that disrespecting what the Feds want?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Early in the 1st Q B1 is guarding the dribbler, A1 in the b/c. B1 grabs A1s arm in an attempt to steal the ball... FOUL.

Same sitch but its late in the game & Team B is trailing by 6... FOUL.
---------------------------------------------------

Early in the 1st Q B1 is guarding the dribbler, A1 in the b/c. B1 grabs A1s arm... Intentional Foul.

Same sitch but its late in the game & Team B is trailing by 6... Intentional Foul.


Whats the problem? And how is that disrespecting what the Feds want?

Early in the 1st Q, A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. No foul.

Late in the 4th Q with A ahead by 5, 20 seconds left. A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. What's your call?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

I believe having quality calls each time we pop is a common goal for us all. But when they foul out I want it to be a high certainty call.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I just don't adhere to it and it's worked for me.

I don't want to miss a foul because it would have been someone's fifth and I wasn't 25% more sure than I was on his first four.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Early in the 1st Q, A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. No foul.

Late in the 4th Q with A ahead by 5, 20 seconds left. A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. What's your call?

If I had already set the precedent for it being a no call, then it's a no call. Game situation (points, time, etc.) is irrelevant.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Early in the 1st Q, A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. No foul.

Late in the 4th Q with A ahead by 5, 20 seconds left. A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. What's your call?

Same call as in the 1st Q... nada. That's not a "take" that would be a GI.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I just don't adhere to it and it's worked for me.

I don't want to miss a foul because it would have been someone's fifth and I wasn't 25% more sure than I was on his first four.

I respect that sir!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Same call as in the 1st Q... nada. That's not a "take" that would be a GI.

This is virtually the same situation as the OP. Read the OP again, would you call that a foul?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

Early in the 1st Q B1 is guarding the dribbler, A1 in the b/c. B1 grabs A1s arm in an attempt to steal the ball... FOUL.

Same sitch but its late in the game & Team B is trailing by 6... FOUL.
---------------------------------------------------

Early in the 1st Q B1 is guarding the dribbler, A1 in the b/c. B1 grabs A1s arm... Intentional Foul.

Same sitch but its late in the game & Team B is trailing by 6... Intentional Foul.


Whats the problem? And how is that disrespecting what the Feds want?

No problem. As long as the play-calling is consistent, that's exactly how the FED wants it called.

However, unless I'm reading them completely wrong, that is not what some other posters are saying in this thread. They are advocating calling a foul on the first contact in a late game, have-to-foul situation. That ignores the fact that the first contact may not be a foul. You might have let the exact same contact go in the first quarter because a dribbler played through it, etc, and no disadvantage was imposed by the incidental contact. If so, you should also be letting the same contact go without a foul being called in the late-game situation also.

Do you call a defender for a foul at anytime during the game if that defender just reaches out and touches a dribbler and then immediately removes the hand? If not, and I sureashell hope not (), you shouldn't be calling the same l'il touch a foul at the end of a game just because the defense wants to stop the clock.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jay R

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.

When the dribbler bounces the ball real high, but never really catches it, then continues to dribble, the accepted practice that everyone expects is for the official to call a violation of some kind. Do you do that as well? I hope not, because there is no violation. It doesn't really matter "what's expected", it matters that the game should be called correctly, without worrying about avoiding a little grief. I really don't care if the crowd or some coach comes unglued because I didn't make that "expected" call, because I know I made the correct call (or no-call, in this case).

Originally Posted by Jay R

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.

Why not? What basis do you use for that philosophy? It certainly isn't from "analyzing that rule book". (Ok, sorry, that was my inner Jurassic coming out.)

Originally Posted by Jay R

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.

I agree, not blowing the whistle to get the game over with is just wrong. But it is just as wrong to blow the whistle just because it's expected.

Let me detail my stance - if B is the team that's behind, and A1, who is the best FT shooter, gets the ball and stands there doubled over covering up the ball while B1 comes running over to commit a foul, then yes, all it really takes is B1 putting both hands on A1 to commit/take a foul. If that's all you mean by calling "what's expected", then we actually agree. However, if A wants to run out the clock and is actively playing keep-away by dribbling and passing the ball, running up and putting 2 hands on A1 will not be a foul unless that same action would have been a foul earlier in the game. I will not reward a team by stopping the clock just because they want to foul, even though the action they committed was not a foul. Yep, I could blow the whistle to avoid some grief. It would even allow me stop thinking and officiating; I wouldn't have to go through any thought process about advantage/disadvantage. Why would I put the team that's ahead at a disadvantage because the other team doesn't know how to, or can't, foul properly in that situation? Do you stop the game and give the other team a basket or two because they don't know how to shoot properly?