Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[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 tref

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.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I just don't adhere to it and it's worked for me.

I don't want to miss a foul because it would have been someone's fifth and I wasn't 25% more sure than I was on his first four.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Early in the 1st Q, A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. No foul.

Late in the 4th Q with A ahead by 5, 20 seconds left. A1 in the back court throws a pass to A2 for a wide open layup. As A1 releases the pass B1 tries to block it and slaps A1's non-throwing arm. What's your call?

Same call as in the 1st Q... nada. That's not a "take" that would be a GI.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I just don't adhere to it and it's worked for me.

I don't want to miss a foul because it would have been someone's fifth and I wasn't 25% more sure than I was on his first four.

I respect that sir!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Same call as in the 1st Q... nada. That's not a "take" that would be a GI.

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

[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?

[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.