Advantage/disadvantage and stopping the clock
 

Happened in a game last week. Team A up by ten, over a minute left. B is fouling to stop the clock, thinking they can come back. B1 gets lazy and grabs the arm of A1 in the backcourt, but A1 keeps going and now has a three on two opportunity at the basket at the other end and scores easily.

I didn't call the grab on B1 because advantage/disadvantage says let A1 go- there is no disadvantage. Coach B is upset and says if I don't call that foul, then his players will "have to foul harder to stop the clock and somebody will get hurt."

If we know a team is trying to foul to stop clock, do we (1) ignore advantage/disadvantage and call the foul, (2) call the intentional foul since we know they are stopping the clock, or (3) make a no-call like I did?

100% call it -- give them what they want. Or, like the coach said, you're only asking for trouble.

There are two ways to call this, and I take my cue from the offense. If the offense is just standing around waiting to get fouled, I'll call it quickly. If, however, the offense is trying to prevent the foul, I'm not taking away a layup to prevent the defense from getting stupid.
If you do call, this, you need to call it intentional (from the way I read it). Getting lazy and grabbing the arm isn't going to get rewarded in my game.

I think we need to ditch the adv/disadv philosophy. Replace with illegal vs. marginal contact.

When a team is behind and trying to "take" a foul, we have to get the first one. The coach is right, his guys will start swinging harder to try and stop the clock.

Get rid of "marginal," and use "incidental" instead. Now, when you look up the definitions of "foul" and "incidental" contact, you'll see a bunch of words that add up to advantage/disadvantage. If you start using "marginal," then you're going to get yourself into some deep water when you call "marginal" contact that creates a big disadvantage.

And it's not my job to prevent a team from getting stupid. I'll call the legitimate fouls, but I'm not going to give them cheap contact fouls because a coach threatens me with harder fouls. I'm not going to help him compensate for poor coaching.

Again, if the offense is just standing there waiting to get fouled, I'll give it to them; but since when do we "give them what they want?" What they're wanting is an unfair advantage and to take away layups.

Again, if you call the foul in the OP, it should be intentional.

A player doesn't "have to foul harder." A player chooses to foul harder. If they do, you have to call it accordingly.

I say, if you're looking to foul, the very least you can do is go for the ball. You could wind up with a steal, and it's very difficult to commit an intentional foul if you're looking to steal.

In your situation, rsl, I agree with what you did. There's no sense in punishing the offense by stopping the clock when the defense is doing something illegal, especially when the offense has a clear path.

Incidental and marginal contact aren't necessarily the same thing. There are three types of contact in the game: illegal, marginal, and incidental. Marginal and incidental are similar, but not the same. Marginal contact would be A1 going up for a layup with his right hand, and getting tapped slightly on his left hand. Foul? Maybe. But if it is a foul the contact is no longer marginal, but instead illegal. Incidental contact would be a defender who gets screened legally, but in the process, gets knocked down by the legal screen. Foul? No. Incidental contact is never a foul. Marginal contact can be a foul, but would be turned into illegal contact if that's the case. Hopefully this makes some sense.

If there's contact and you determine the contact to be marginal, isn't that more or less applying advantage/disadvantage? I agree with you that in that situation you should probably call the foul, but I don't see much difference between determining contact to be marginal and applying advantage/disadvantage.

No, this isn't a foul. How does it affect the shot? It's incidental because it has not effect on the shot.

Wrong, by rule, there are two types of contact; illegal and incidental. To me, "marginal" would be somewhere near the line between the two where judgment comes into play. But I don't get the sense that it's being used that way in this discussion. "Marginal" contact is not defined, "incidental" contact is defined.

Can marginal contact be defined if its based on judgement? Incidental contact can be easily defined because its not a foul. Marginal goes into advantage/disadvantage and therefore is much more difficult to define. I agree I wouldn't go a coach and tell him there was marginal contact because they wouldn't understand. I just don't agree that the two are the synonymous.

They aren't synonymous, that's why I hate using the word in this context. To some, "marginal contact" would mean "light contact." To others (including me), it simply means contact which is on the line between illegal and incidental; contact which takes some judgment to, well, judge. Maybe "borderline" would be a better term here.

One meaning has nothing, really, to do with whether it's a foul. As "marginal" contact (defined by severity) can be a foul while some pretty severe contact could be incidental.

What, exactly, do you mean by "marginal?"

I completely agree with you. Marginal contact is on the line between illegal and incidental. Incidental contact cannot be a foul. Advantage/disadvantage is applied with marginal contact to determine whether the contact is illegal or not. I've gotten this from Al Battista who does observe for the NBA, so maybe this is an NBA concept more than anything. I just think judgement comes into play with marginal contact, while incidental contact in 100% of the circumstances cannot be a foul. Marginal contact is contact that could be illegal, but because you are applying the philosophy of advantage/disadvantage, it is determined to be legal.

Incidental contact is defined, in part, as contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements (a bunch of words that add up to "advantage/disadvantage."

So, to me, I'm using a/d to determine whether it's incidental or not. Sometimes, it's easy and not much judgment is required. A/D isn't only used on contact that's close to illegal or incidental, it's just that sometimes the decision is easier to make.

Marginal would be that body bump on a shooter going in for a layup. Did it affect his shot? Hard to say, so we use judgment. Marginal is the contact on a moving screen which may or may not have slowed the defender. Hard to say, so we use judgment.

I think we need to use advantage/disadvantage sometimes to determine whether the contact was illegal or incidental. I further believe that's exactly what the rule books tell us to do using basically the exact same terms.

Simple is not necessarily bad.

And oh yes, forget concepts like "marginal contact". They're not needed and just confuse matters imo.

Sigh......

Somebody else saying the exact same thing as everyone else has been saying for many years but using slightly different language and thinking they've just discovered the secret of the officiating universe....

Tell Al Battista that all he's saying is that you apply advantage/disadvantage to contact to determine if that contact is incidental or illegal. And that's exactly what the NCAA and NFHS rulesmakers have been telling us for years. And I've got a funny feeling that Al Battista might just admit it's the exact same concept also.

It doesn't matter whether the contact is marginal or extreme. Both types may or may not be a foul depending on whether you determine that particular contact to be incidental(LEGAL) or illegal.

All very good points from the panel.

I think we are digressing from the key point here. In my opinion the key point is this = we need to recognize when a team is trying to "take a foul." When this happens, we need to call the first foul. From the OP comments, it sounds like a foul had definitely been committed.

I don't care if they're trying to "take" a foul. If they actually commit a foul, I'll call it.

The OP does not sound like a foul to me. What normal offensive and defensive movements were hindered? The offense played through incidental contact, and if you call this a foul, you're penalizing the offense.

For the record, you should always call the first foul; that's a truism. The first contact, however, is not always the first foul.

I'll reiterate; the way I read the OP, if you call that foul you really need to call it intentional.

Coach I understand the game situation, but I didn't think you wanted to give them 2 FTs AND the ball back.

In the situation described I'm ok with a no call.

The thing I try to keep in mind in these situations is if I'm going to make sure that a disavantage situation occurs from contact before I blow the whistle, then my partner and I can't be jumping the gun on excessive contact = unsportsmanlike. If someone tries to take someone's head off or makes a dirty play then defiinitely call it as necessary, BUT in fairness I can't let a couple of reaching touches go as no calls based on the ball handler playing through it, only to then have my partner call unsportsmanlike for excessive contact as a kid in desperation makes a hard play on the ball to make sure its a turnover (if they get the ball) or illegal contact (if they miss).

I assume this is what coach B in the scenario is worried about. If you can pull an arm without a call, the next step beyond that "from a kids stand point" will be its need to be a full take down that is probably going to get called an unsportsmanlike. He's and probably his player are not thinking hmmm maybe he wasn't disadvantaged, they are concluding I can tear someone's arm off and its a no call but if I do anything else its over the line.

The easy thing to do is understand the situation and make sure the coaches and players understand it as you see it too.

I disagree. The kids knew how to play defense all game long, and presumably committed a few fouls along the way. I'm not going to bail a coach out when he has failed to coach his kids on how to execute the strategy properly.

Terrible advice which is directly counter to the stated position of the NFHS! :mad:

From the 2006-07 NFHS Points of Emphasis:

Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly.

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.

In theory and the printed rule book we are talking about something that isn't the case in reality. I know several assigners, D1 officials and varsity officials (myself included) 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. In my experience, everyone in the facility knows what is going on and not calling it because rule......... says......... isn't going to cut it. YMMV

The verbiage discussion is kind of off topic, but based on personal opinion. I don't know about anyone else, but the term doesn't matter when officials still don't call it. Marginal contact is something that comes from the NBA and I think that is why some resist using the term. <shrug> it doesn't really matter. What matters more than terms is actions by the officials.

In my experience, marginal contact comes up in conversation when someone feels a no-call is the best thing (not) to do. I was at a camp one time and Ronnie Nunn commented about a call I made. He said he thought it was marginal contact - he didn't think I should have called it. He was on the far end of the court. Zack Zarba, who was closer, said it was a good call. When those guys use those terms it kind of trickles down.

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.

Well said.

Call the fouls. Ignore incidental contact. Be consistent.

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

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

You had me until here.

<font size =+3>We're always civil</font> <font size = -3>to other Yankee fans</font>.

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

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'd be curious about where others stand on this. RockyRoad & BTaylor for example?

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

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.

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.

You had me until here.

:D

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.

The rules dont change... the GAME does. If there's no contact, I've got nothing.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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


I respect that sir!

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

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.

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).

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.)

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?

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.

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

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

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? :o

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

That rule is SOOOO last decade

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.

+1

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

Noob question: "GIs"?

Game interrupters

Defined as "I didn't like that call."

With Kung Fu Grip ...
 

Also known as suffering from Gamus Interruptus. :p

Doozy
 

Shoot me a PM, please