Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[Pantherdreams]

Ok but if during the course of the game I see player reach and touch, reach in and touch, reach in and touch and the frequency is increasing and I can see its going to lead to rough play. I'm calling a foul and trying to clean it up.

In a late game situation where a player is looking to foul then I would apply the same logic while the first 1 or 2 may not be enough on their own I can see where its going to either I need to call it before it escalates, or be ok with waiting until it does and then needing to call something else.

I don't think setting the ball handler up to get thumped and risk by letting him play through while their defender gets increasingly agitated and worried about their coaches resposne.

I agree if it was a foul early, its a foul now. It was unpsportsmanlike before it was an unsportsmanlike now. But there is also a provision in the rules for calling fouls on plays that are not in themselves illegal but promote rough play. If I can see that is where the play is going by letting reaches and grabs go when the other team is trying to foul then I'm calling the foul that stops the escalation rather then risking something worse.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

If a call was to be made there, sounds like an int...

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I hear ya JR. I agree, some have left out the key word, first ILLEGAL contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

If a call was to be made there, sounds like an int...

Then we agree on that play. I've made a call on the play where A1 got bumped as he threw pass to a wide open teammate. I took away the layup, and coach was not happy. Wanted an Int if I made the call.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then we agree on that play. I've made a call on the play where A1 got bumped as he threw pass to a wide open teammate. I took away the layup, and coach was not happy. Wanted an Int if I made the call.

Man Snaqs, havent WE all?

The teaching point I took away from that was to look down the floor before putting air in it.

Practicing patience, seeing the next layer of the play & having a feel for the game, has helped me improve in eliminating my GIs.

Late & correct > quick & incorrect

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Man Snaqs, havent WE all?

The teaching point I took away from that was to look down the floor before putting air in it.

Practicing patience, seeing the next layer of the play & having a feel for the game, has helped me improve in eliminating my GIs.

Late & correct > quick & incorrect

Exactly. Funny thing was, I called it because the bump was pretty good. If I'd have held off slightly, A2 gets a layup. OTOH, it was one of those careless/rough bumps where letting it go might lead to escalation.

We did end up with an INT and a flagrant that game (on the same careless big guy who thought he was playing defensive safety.)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We're always civil to other Yankee fans.

We in Red Sox Nation resemble that remark. too. The dirty secret is that Yankee fans and Red Sox fans are cut from the same cloth.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.)

M&M,

I guess my philosophy is based on the discussions I've had with the veteran officials in my area and my mentor. These are college officials who I respect very much. They feel that you have to come in and fit in with the way the game is called at certain level. And where I officiate, it's the norm to call the foul when the defense is trying to foul and they make contact.

Some have said that this is inconsistent. i don't feel it's inconsistent because the situation is not the same. In the first half, when a player makes contact with the dribbler and I feel there is no adv/disadv. I don't blow the whistle. In that situation, the player is not trying to foul on purpose. Late in the game, as long as I feel that he is making some attempt to go for the ball (which is subjective), I'll give him the foul right away.

A partner of mine once decided to not call a foul in a similar late game situation. Two seconds later there is a turnover which leads to a basket. In the discussion after the game, he said he thought he was doing the offensive team a favour by ignoring the contact. I'd rather just call the foul.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jay R

M&M,

I guess my philosophy is based on the discussions I've had with the veteran officials in my area and my mentor. These are college officials who I respect very much. They feel that you have to come in and fit in with the way the game is called at certain level. And where I officiate, it's the norm to call the foul when the defense is trying to foul and they make contact.

Some have said that this is inconsistent. i don't feel it's inconsistent because the situation is not the same. In the first half, when a player makes contact with the dribbler and I feel there is no adv/disadv. I don't blow the whistle. In that situation, the player is not trying to foul on purpose. Late in the game, as long as I feel that he is making some attempt to go for the ball (which is subjective), I'll give him the foul right away.

A partner of mine once decided to not call a foul in a similar late game situation. Two seconds later there is a turnover which leads to a basket. In the discussion after the game, he said he thought he was doing the offensive team a favour by ignoring the contact. I'd rather just call the foul.

Maybe we're not that far apart, because usually when a team is trying to foul, and causes contact, most of the time that contact is a foul at any point in the game. And I agree we should call those fouls, not let them go so the game gets done sooner.

But here's where I disagree with you - I may know one team is trying to foul, and that may cause me to be aware of all contact, but I'm not going to give a foul just because one team is trying and not succeeding. Would you give one team a basket because they're trying to score, but not succeeding? Of course not, and it's the same reasoning why I'm not going to call a foul on contact that wouldn't be a foul at any other part of the game. We still need to officiate the entire game, and not give up our decision-making at the end of a game. By calling a foul on contact that would not be a foul at another point in the game is no different than not blowing the whistle at all - you've given up decision-making for "getting the game over with", or, "avoiding grief", keeping players and coaches happy", etc. And if I was the coach who taught his/her players to avoid getting fouled at the end of these games, I would be pissed that the clock would be stopped for incidental contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jay R

M&M,

I guess my philosophy is based on the discussions I've had with the veteran officials in my area and my mentor. These are college officials who I respect very much. They feel that you have to come in and fit in with the way the game is called at certain level. And where I officiate, it's the norm to call the foul when the defense is trying to foul and they make contact.

Some have said that this is inconsistent. i don't feel it's inconsistent because the situation is not the same. In the first half, when a player makes contact with the dribbler and I feel there is no adv/disadv. I don't blow the whistle. In that situation, the player is not trying to foul on purpose. Late in the game, as long as I feel that he is making some attempt to go for the ball (which is subjective), I'll give him the foul right away.

A partner of mine once decided to not call a foul in a similar late game situation. Two seconds later there is a turnover which leads to a basket. In the discussion after the game, he said he thought he was doing the offensive team a favour by ignoring the contact. I'd rather just call the foul.

I don't understand why we're changing the way we call it just because the defense is purposefully trying to break the rules. Why does the defense get what they want when the offense doesn't?

You still haven't answered this question: Why are you willing to give the bend the rules in favor of the defense here, when the offense has the rules on their side? Are you going to take away the layup in the OP just because the defense wants you to?

For the record, your partner was right to ignore the incidental contact; and he wasn't doing anyone a favor. He was following the rule.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't understand why we're changing the way we call it just because the defense is purposefully trying to break the rules. Why does the defense get what they want when the offense doesn't?

You still haven't answered this question: Why are you willing to give the bend the rules in favor of the defense here, when the offense has the rules on their side? Are you going to take away the layup in the OP just because the defense wants you to?

For the record, your partner was right to ignore the incidental contact; and he wasn't doing anyone a favor. He was following the rule.

We aren't changing the rules we're calling them in the context of a situation. In this situation we know not calling the first touch or reach is going to lead to more reaches and touches. This isn't the middle of the game where if there is a slap that is not directly effecting the play it won't happen, if we don't call that slap there is another one coming harder and faster almost immediately.

I agree if it was a foul early, its a foul now. It was unpsportsmanlike before it was an unsportsmanlike now. But there is also a provision in the rules for calling fouls on plays that are not in themselves illegal but promote rough play. If I can see that is where the play is going by letting reaches and grabs go when the other team is trying to foul then I'm calling the foul that stops the escalation rather then risking something worse.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

We aren't changing the rules we're calling them in the context of a situation. In this situation we know not calling the first touch or reach is going to lead to more reaches and touches. This isn't the middle of the game where if there is a slap that is not directly effecting the play it won't happen, if we don't call that slap there is another one coming harder and faster almost immediately.

in other words, you're calling the play the way that you think it should be called. To hell with consistent play-calling. To hell with the direction that the rules maakers gave us. Yup, you know better than all that.

Absolutely terrible advice imo. You can't officiate a game with fear.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

[]

That rule is SOOOO last decade

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

We aren't changing the rules we're calling them in the context of a situation. In this situation we know not calling the first touch or reach is going to lead to more reaches and touches. This isn't the middle of the game where if there is a slap that is not directly effecting the play it won't happen, if we don't call that slap there is another one coming harder and faster almost immediately.

I agree if it was a foul early, its a foul now. It was unpsportsmanlike before it was an unsportsmanlike now. But there is also a provision in the rules for calling fouls on plays that are not in themselves illegal but promote rough play. If I can see that is where the play is going by letting reaches and grabs go when the other team is trying to foul then I'm calling the foul that stops the escalation rather then risking something worse.

If the defense doesn't know how to foul, I'm not bailing them out. It seems you (and others here) are willing to do that.

You absolutely are bending the rules in favor of one team for fear of that team getting out of hand. I would prefer to actually officiate the game, and if they get out of hand, it's on them.

And I don't have to go to my assigner later and say, "Well, I was afraid if I didn't call the first contact, they might get rough."

I'll say this, if it's the custom in your area, so be it; just so the offenses all know they're going to get screwed and may as well just fold up and wait for the foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You absolutely are bending the rules in favor of one team for fear of that team getting out of hand. I would prefer to actually officiate the game, and if they get out of hand, it's on them.

+1

More so, you should never try to help the team that's breaking the rules.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by tref

...has helped me improve in eliminating my GIs.

Noob question: "GIs"?