As noted above, your opinion, which I am sure is shared by others, is not supported by rule.

I think we spend too much time here talking about what is supported by rule as if everything we do is supported by rule. If that was the case then there would be no need for these sites and many officiating publications or trainings.

Peace

I agree. Judgment is a huge part of officiating.

The OP talks about "advantageous contact." Well, what's advantageous can be a matter or opinion and judgment. In some cases, whether or not the ball goes in can be part of deciding whether or not the contact was indeed advantageous.

In certain situations, I will factor in whether or not the ball went in. And I think this is what the OP was getting at. Obvious contact, of course, you have a whistle no matter what. But there are instances where there is marginal contact and you have to decide whether or not it's advantageous.

You didn't get the memo I see. You cannot talk about "marginal contact" anymore. :D

Peace

The debate in this thread is not whether the contact was advantageous. It was. That is a given.

To paraphrase and expand the OP: As A1 goes up to shoot, B1 grabs his arm with such force that he is spun sideways. A1 is still able to muscle the ball up and into the basket. Since the shot went in, should the contact be ignored?

NO WAY

Where does the OP state anything like the scenario you just described? If it was as obvious as above then of course you have a foul regardless. But I don't sense that is the kind of play he is talking about.

Maybe he mispoke when he said "advantageous." Because what I am talking about, and I assume the OP and JRutledge are too, is situations where there is marginal contact and you take into account whether or not the ball went in to decide if it was indeed contact that was advantageous.

This garbage about waiting to see if the ball goes in and passing on a foul if it does is a reason why we as officials get a bad rap from outside observers. Quit trying to be so damn philosophical and just call illegal contact as it should be called. If the ball goes in in the situation in the OP, tough luck for Team B who fouled the shooter I guess. Maybe they'll learn next time.

In our area, we have been instructed to call illegal contact and throw "advantage/disadvantage" out the window. We are told that we will never get in trouble for calling fouls as opposed to "passing" on "marginal contact". Also, I VERY rarely if ever hear from coaches during games that we're calling the game too tightly.

Wow. Could not disagree more.

Sigh.....:rolleyes:

You were already told in the original post that the contact was advantageous. Bainsey already made that decision for you. That was his opinion and judgment. Are you saying that bainsey lied to you...and us?

RIF!

Our responses were based on the assumption that bainsey actually meant what he said and didn't "mispoke". Bainsey...the OP... didn't mention "marginal contact" in any way. You and Jeff want to inject that into the situation. Well, any discussion of "marginal contact" is completely irrelevant because bainsey has already told us the contact was illegal because it was "advantageous".

If you want to discuss whether marginal contact on a shot should be a foul or not, you need to start a brand new thread. That particular discussion has got dickity-boo to do with this thread. It's 2 completely different and disparate discussions.

As I said, reading is fundamental. And comprehension is also necessary.

My personal feeling is that it's more of a comprehension problem. They're confusing incidental contact with illegal contact.

We do have to decide if "marginal contact" is a foul. But when the contact occurs is the point where we have to decide whether that marginal contact was incidental or illegal contact. But that decision is solely dependant on the actual contact, not whether the ball went in or not after the contact. There's just too many factors involved to adjudicate the play that way...the athleticism of the shooter, the strength of the shooter, the determination of the shooter, etc. We should always be striving for calling uniformity for these types of plays from beginning to end and at both ends of the court. You can't possibly do that if there is a variation in the shooters with regards to their individual athleticism, strength, determination, etc. How can anybody possibly justify calling a foul on a play just because the shooter wasn't as strong as another player in muscling the ball into the basket after being similarly fouled with the identical contact on a play that was previously no-called?

We are also trying to get our guys to do exactly what you guys have been instructed to do. Decide whether the contact was illegal or not at the point of contact, and then try to call it that way uniformly at both ends from beginning to end.

So, uh, how do you distinguish between incidental contact and illegal contact?

They don't. In other news, they average 70 FTs per game.

I'm just picturing all the layups that get taken away when the dribbler beats his defender but gets slapped on the arm as he goes by.

I think that they still advocate using advantage/disadvantage as one of the criteria at the point of contact in determining whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Iow they're not waiting and trying to inject advantage/disadvantage in after the contact has ended.

I think....

zm1283 should clarify that in case I be thinkin' wrongly. :)