Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[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.