Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[ajs8207]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

They aren't synonymous, that's why I hate using the word in this context. To some, "marginal contact" would mean "light contact." To others (including me), it simply means contact which is on the line between illegal and incidental; contact which takes some judgment to, well, judge. Maybe "borderline" would be a better term here.

One meaning has nothing, really, to do with whether it's a foul. As "marginal" contact (defined by severity) can be a foul while some pretty severe contact could be incidental.

What, exactly, do you mean by "marginal?"

I completely agree with you. Marginal contact is on the line between illegal and incidental. Incidental contact cannot be a foul. Advantage/disadvantage is applied with marginal contact to determine whether the contact is illegal or not. I've gotten this from Al Battista who does observe for the NBA, so maybe this is an NBA concept more than anything. I just think judgement comes into play with marginal contact, while incidental contact in 100% of the circumstances cannot be a foul. Marginal contact is contact that could be illegal, but because you are applying the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage, it is determined to be legal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

I completely agree with you. Marginal contact is on the line between illegal and incidental. Incidental contact cannot be a foul. Advantage/disadvantage is applied with marginal contact to determine whether the contact is illegal or not. I've gotten this from Al Battista who does observe for the NBA, so maybe this is an NBA concept more than anything. I just think judgement comes into play with marginal contact, while incidental contact in 100% of the circumstances cannot be a foul. Marginal contact is contact that could be illegal, but because you are applying the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage, it is determined to be legal.

Incidental contact is defined, in part, as contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements (a bunch of words that add up to "advantage/disadvantage."

So, to me, I'm using a/d to determine whether it's incidental or not. Sometimes, it's easy and not much judgment is required. A/D isn't only used on contact that's close to illegal or incidental, it's just that sometimes the decision is easier to make.

Marginal would be that body bump on a shooter going in for a layup. Did it affect his shot? Hard to say, so we use judgment. Marginal is the contact on a moving screen which may or may not have slowed the defender. Hard to say, so we use judgment.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ajs8207

I completely agree with you. Marginal contact is on the line between illegal and incidental. Incidental contact cannot be a foul. Advantage/disadvantage is applied with marginal contact to determine whether the contact is illegal or not. I've gotten this from Al Battista who does observe for the NBA, so maybe this is an NBA concept more than anything. I just think judgement comes into play with marginal contact, while incidental contact in 100% of the circumstances cannot be a foul. Marginal contact is contact that could be illegal, but because you are applying the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage, it is determined to be legal.

Sigh......

Somebody else saying the exact same thing as everyone else has been saying for many years but using slightly different language and thinking they've just discovered the secret of the officiating universe....

Tell Al Battista that all he's saying is that you apply advantage/disadvantage to contact to determine if that contact is incidental or illegal. And that's exactly what the NCAA and NFHS rulesmakers have been telling us for years. And I've got a funny feeling that Al Battista might just admit it's the exact same concept also.

It doesn't matter whether the contact is marginal or extreme. Both types may or may not be a foul depending on whether you determine that particular contact to be incidental(LEGAL) or illegal.

[Tio]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by rsl

Coach B is upset and says if I don't call that foul, then his players will "have to foul harder to stop the clock and somebody will get hurt."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

, 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 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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

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

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.

Originally Posted by Tio

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.

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.

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.

[tomegun]

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. 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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tomegun

...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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

Well said.

Call the fouls. Ignore incidental contact. Be consistent.

[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 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?