Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[bradfordwilkins]

100% call it -- give them what they want. Or, like the coach said, you're only asking for trouble.

[Adam]

There are two ways to call this, and I take my cue from the offense. If the offense is just standing around waiting to get fouled, I'll call it quickly. If, however, the offense is trying to prevent the foul, I'm not taking away a layup to prevent the defense from getting stupid.
If you do call, this, you need to call it intentional (from the way I read it). Getting lazy and grabbing the arm isn't going to get rewarded in my game.

[Tio]

I think we need to ditch the adv/disadv philosophy. Replace with illegal vs. marginal contact.

When a team is behind and trying to "take" a foul, we have to get the first one. The coach is right, his guys will start swinging harder to try and stop the clock.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

I think we need to ditch the adv/disadv philosophy. Replace with illegal vs. marginal contact.

When a team is behind and trying to "take" a foul, we have to get the first one. The coach is right, his guys will start swinging harder to try and stop the clock.

Get rid of "marginal," and use "incidental" instead. Now, when you look up the definitions of "foul" and "incidental" contact, you'll see a bunch of words that add up to advantage/disadvantage. If you start using "marginal," then you're going to get yourself into some deep water when you call "marginal" contact that creates a big disadvantage.

And it's not my job to prevent a team from getting stupid. I'll call the legitimate fouls, but I'm not going to give them cheap contact fouls because a coach threatens me with harder fouls. I'm not going to help him compensate for poor coaching.

Again, if the offense is just standing there waiting to get fouled, I'll give it to them; but since when do we "give them what they want?" What they're wanting is an unfair advantage and to take away layups.

Again, if you call the foul in the OP, it should be intentional.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Get rid of "marginal," and use "incidental" instead. Now, when you look up the definitions of "foul" and "incidental" contact, you'll see a bunch of words that add up to advantage/disadvantage. If you start using "marginal," then you're going to get yourself into some deep water when you call "marginal" contact that creates a big disadvantage.

And it's not my job to prevent a team from getting stupid. I'll call the legitimate fouls, but I'm not going to give them cheap contact fouls because a coach threatens me with harder fouls. I'm not going to help him compensate for poor coaching.

Again, if the offense is just standing there waiting to get fouled, I'll give it to them; but since when do we "give them what they want?" What they're wanting is an unfair advantage and to take away layups.

Again, if you call the foul in the OP, it should be intentional.

Incidental and marginal contact aren't necessarily the same thing. There are three types of contact in the game: illegal, marginal, and incidental. Marginal and incidental are similar, but not the same. Marginal contact would be A1 going up for a layup with his right hand, and getting tapped slightly on his left hand. Foul? Maybe. But if it is a foul the contact is no longer marginal, but instead illegal. Incidental contact would be a defender who gets screened legally, but in the process, gets knocked down by the legal screen. Foul? No. Incidental contact is never a foul. Marginal contact can be a foul, but would be turned into illegal contact if that's the case. Hopefully this makes some sense.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

Incidental and marginal contact aren't necessarily the same thing. There are three types of contact in the game: illegal, marginal, and incidental. Marginal and incidental are similar, but not the same. Marginal contact would be A1 going up for a layup with his right hand, and getting tapped slightly on his left hand. Foul? Maybe.

No, this isn't a foul. How does it affect the shot? It's incidental because it has not effect on the shot.

Originally Posted by ajs8207

But if it is a foul the contact is no longer marginal, but instead illegal. Incidental contact would be a defender who gets screened legally, but in the process, gets knocked down by the legal screen. Foul? No. Incidental contact is never a foul. Marginal contact can be a foul, but would be turned into illegal contact if that's the case. Hopefully this makes some sense.

Wrong, by rule, there are two types of contact; illegal and incidental. To me, "marginal" would be somewhere near the line between the two where judgment comes into play. But I don't get the sense that it's being used that way in this discussion. "Marginal" contact is not defined, "incidental" contact is defined.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, this isn't a foul. How does it affect the shot? It's incidental because it has not effect on the shot.



Wrong, by rule, there are two types of contact; illegal and incidental. To me, "marginal" would be somewhere near the line between the two where judgment comes into play. But I don't get the sense that it's being used that way in this discussion. "Marginal" contact is not defined, "incidental" contact is defined.

Can marginal contact be defined if its based on judgement? Incidental contact can be easily defined because its not a foul. Marginal goes into advantage/disadvantage and therefore is much more difficult to define. I agree I wouldn't go a coach and tell him there was marginal contact because they wouldn't understand. I just don't agree that the two are the synonymous.

[bainsey]

A player doesn't "have to foul harder." A player chooses to foul harder. If they do, you have to call it accordingly.

I say, if you're looking to foul, the very least you can do is go for the ball. You could wind up with a steal, and it's very difficult to commit an intentional foul if you're looking to steal.

In your situation, rsl, I agree with what you did. There's no sense in punishing the offense by stopping the clock when the defense is doing something illegal, especially when the offense has a clear path.

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by Tio

I think we need to ditch the adv/disadv philosophy. Replace with illegal vs. marginal contact.

When a team is behind and trying to "take" a foul, we have to get the first one. The coach is right, his guys will start swinging harder to try and stop the clock.

If there's contact and you determine the contact to be marginal, isn't that more or less applying advantage/disadvantage? I agree with you that in that situation you should probably call the foul, but I don't see much difference between determining contact to be marginal and applying advantage/disadvantage.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Tio

I think we need to ditch the adv/disadv philosophy. Replace with illegal vs. marginal contact.

I think we need to use advantage/disadvantage sometimes to determine whether the contact was illegal or incidental. I further believe that's exactly what the rule books tell us to do using basically the exact same terms.

Simple is not necessarily bad.

And oh yes, forget concepts like "marginal contact". They're not needed and just confuse matters imo.