Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Uh, oh. Nevada, Jurassic and I agree on something.

What's next? World peace? Dogs playing with cats? Yankee fans being civil?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Uh, oh. Nevada, Jurassic and I agree on something.

What's next? World peace? Dogs playing with cats? Yankee fans being civil?

You had me until here.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yankee fans being civil?

We're always civil to other Yankee fans.

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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?