Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock

[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.

[Adam]

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.

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.

If the defense doesn't know how to foul, I'm not bailing them out. It seems you (and others here) are willing to do that.

You absolutely are bending the rules in favor of one team for fear of that team getting out of hand. I would prefer to actually officiate the game, and if they get out of hand, it's on them.

And I don't have to go to my assigner later and say, "Well, I was afraid if I didn't call the first contact, they might get rough."

I'll say this, if it's the custom in your area, so be it; just so the offenses all know they're going to get screwed and may as well just fold up and wait for the foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You absolutely are bending the rules in favor of one team for fear of that team getting out of hand. I would prefer to actually officiate the game, and if they get out of hand, it's on them.

+1

More so, you should never try to help the team that's breaking the rules.