Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

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?

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?

[Mark Padgett]

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?

If I had already set the precedent for it being a no call, then it's a no call. Game situation (points, time, etc.) is irrelevant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

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?

No problem. As long as the play-calling is consistent, that's exactly how the FED wants it called.

However, unless I'm reading them completely wrong, that is not what some other posters are saying in this thread. They are advocating calling a foul on the first contact in a late game, have-to-foul situation. That ignores the fact that the first contact may not be a foul. You might have let the exact same contact go in the first quarter because a dribbler played through it, etc, and no disadvantage was imposed by the incidental contact. If so, you should also be letting the same contact go without a foul being called in the late-game situation also.

Do you call a defender for a foul at anytime during the game if that defender just reaches out and touches a dribbler and then immediately removes the hand? If not, and I sureashell hope not (), you shouldn't be calling the same l'il touch a foul at the end of a game just because the defense wants to stop the clock.

[Pantherdreams]

Ok but if during the course of the game I see player reach and touch, reach in and touch, reach in and touch and the frequency is increasing and I can see its going to lead to rough play. I'm calling a foul and trying to clean it up.

In a late game situation where a player is looking to foul then I would apply the same logic while the first 1 or 2 may not be enough on their own I can see where its going to either I need to call it before it escalates, or be ok with waiting until it does and then needing to call something else.

I don't think setting the ball handler up to get thumped and risk by letting him play through while their defender gets increasingly agitated and worried about their coaches resposne.

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

If a call was to be made there, sounds like an int...

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

However, unless I'm reading them completely wrong, that is not what some other posters are saying in this thread. They are advocating calling a foul on the first contact in a late game, have-to-foul situation.

I hear ya JR. I agree, some have left out the key word, first ILLEGAL contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

If a call was to be made there, sounds like an int...

Then we agree on that play. I've made a call on the play where A1 got bumped as he threw pass to a wide open teammate. I took away the layup, and coach was not happy. Wanted an Int if I made the call.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then we agree on that play. I've made a call on the play where A1 got bumped as he threw pass to a wide open teammate. I took away the layup, and coach was not happy. Wanted an Int if I made the call.

Man Snaqs, havent WE all?

The teaching point I took away from that was to look down the floor before putting air in it.

Practicing patience, seeing the next layer of the play & having a feel for the game, has helped me improve in eliminating my GIs.

Late & correct > quick & incorrect

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Man Snaqs, havent WE all?

The teaching point I took away from that was to look down the floor before putting air in it.

Practicing patience, seeing the next layer of the play & having a feel for the game, has helped me improve in eliminating my GIs.

Late & correct > quick & incorrect

Exactly. Funny thing was, I called it because the bump was pretty good. If I'd have held off slightly, A2 gets a layup. OTOH, it was one of those careless/rough bumps where letting it go might lead to escalation.

We did end up with an INT and a flagrant that game (on the same careless big guy who thought he was playing defensive safety.)

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by tref

...has helped me improve in eliminating my GIs.

Noob question: "GIs"?