Contact, Wait for It, Miss, Tweet.
 

How do you folks feel about this, as a general practice?

A-1 shoots, B-2 makes advantageous contact on A-1, official holds his whistle, ball rolls off the rim, official whistles the foul.

Agree, disagree, or gray area?

Slippery slope. 10 years ago, that was called "game management". Some supervisors still eschew 3-point plays. I would stay away from that. Call what the film would show.

Disagree. You're penalizing a player just for making a shot if you don't call the foul. And doing so after you've already decided that the shooter was put at a disadvantage with the contact makes that decision even more ridiculous.

A foul is a foul. Call the damn thing the same at both ends of the court from the beginning to the end of the game. And don't think so damn much. Note:intended for everyone, not just bainsey.

Why does it matter what happens after this?

Only if it's "marginal" contact. :)

Bainsey:

Reading your play reminds me of the baseball umpiring tape called: "See a Balk. Call a Balk."

My advice to you in this play is: "See a foul, call a foul."

MTD, Sr.

It is a factor. I would not say it is "the" factor. But it certainly is a factor. And anyone says you call fouls without knowing something about the result of the contact (which does not have necessarily have to do with the ball going in the basket is lying or does not have very good judgment IMO). And yes it usually is a bigger factor on marginal contact. ;)

Peace

In the original post, bainsey said that B2 fouled A1. Note...he unambiguously said that B2 fouled A1. He didn't say that there might have been a possibility of incidental contact. We knew the result of the contact because bainsey told us. He told us that the result of the contact was B2 gaining an advantage through the contact. That's what's known as a "foul".

Put me down for not having good judgment then, because I ain't lying when I say that if B2 fouls A1, every official in the world should call the damn foul imo. The contact may have been marginal but the contact was definitely illegal, not incidental. Bainsey flat out told us that when he told us that the defender gained an advantage through the contact.

You'd really allow a defender to gain an advantage through a foul? I can see waiting to see if the contact actually gave the defender an advantage or not, and ignoring the contact if you felt that there was no advantage gained. But when we are told that there was absolutely no doubt that an advantage was gained?

Lah me......we just ain't gonna agree on that one.

When you say someone is fouled, that is completely a judgment. It is not necessarily a fact or something that people will not disagree with. I know I have called a foul that when seen on tape or even immediately after I blow the whistle I may just disagree with. So when you say someone is fouled, it is your judgment on the play, not something that cannot be disputed.

I take his comments as much more of a philosophical question, not a stated fact. If I do not call a foul, it is not a foul as it relates to the game. If it should be a foul or not is up to those observing the contest being officiated.


I did not say I would pass on a foul that I clearly think is a foul. I said that I judge contact based on a lot of factors. I will put it in another context. There is a lot of contact on rebounds in many aspects of the game. I know that I judge the contact on those plays based on what happened to the player and the result of the play. Unless the play is not rough or not basketball related, I will factor in things like did the player end up with the ball? Did the player keep his balance? What other types of contact did we allow to take place in that game? If I can do that in that situation, why are the shots result totally off limits. And yes, the rebounding foul philosophy is taught at many camps and by many officials to judge if advantage or disadvantage took place. So yes we will just have to disagree on this, because I always consider the result. Even in the NCAA's usage of absolutes are not in the rulebook, but a guideline used to call a foul. And the result of the play is often the reason for the absolute to determine a foul.

Peace

Ah no, it's not.

He created a hypothetical situation and said that B1 gained advantage by contacting A1. That's a foul and that's the scenario he setup.

He could have simply asked the question, "When a shooter is fouled, do you wait and see if the basket is good before making the call?"

I'm sure you'll come back with some stupid BS reply like you have for over 10 years but when somebody asks a question and says a foul occurred, then a foul occurred.

Yes it is. Because every single time I am at a camp or meeting or training we have there are different opinions on plays. For my association we often use video of plays and show foul and violation calls and I cannot think of a single time where everyone agrees with all the plays. Whether is it block/charge calls or travels, those observing will disagree. Now maybe they all agree on everything they see in your area, but I have yet to experience this and certainly not on plays that this OP talked about. My partners and I had a big disagreement over several plays we had where the basket counted. It was pointed out to me that "normally you would let that go." I disagreed, but that just goes to show even people you share a basic philosophy with will disagree about the same play. But it is all BS because you say it is. :rolleyes:

Peace

Jeff, you are arguing with the basic premise of the OP. There was advantage written into the scenario. You seem to be saying there might not have been.

Or are you saying there can be advantage and no foul?

He doesn't get it.

The OP asked two philosophical questions. I was not even concerned with the play or if or if not a foul should have been called. I feel that we decide things on many factors and the ball going in or likely to go in is a factor in my opinion. If I felt it was the only factor I would never call a foul on a shot where I count the basket. I have too many times on tape where I do that. And one case was clearly in a game that anyone could have seen on TV last February.

Peace

Almost every game I officiate, is filmed. Coaches bring film to our executive board all of the time complaining about EVERYTHING, 5 second closely guarded, fouls, carries. EVERYTHING.

If you see it, call it. If you don't in time you will hear about it.

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. :)

I don't get all the hub bub. Really, a patient whistle lets you see whether or not advantage has really been gained. I look to see if the shot was altered because of the contact, not whether the ball goes in or not. That said, I'd have a lot more "and one" fouls if I didn't have a patient whistle. This is where I could throw in the phrase "game interrupter" and some people on thread would have a stroke. :D

Rich, bainsey in the original post of this thread told us that advantage had definitely been gained by the contact. In that case, what purpose could you possibly have in waiting any further to blow your whistle? We know an advantage has been gained on this play because bainsey told us that in his original post. There is no decision to be made by us after we're given that knowledge.

You're right in that we should be applying advantage/disadvantage when determining if a foul should be called. The question from bainsey though is that when you decide that it definitely is a foul, do you also then further wait to decide whether you're going to actually call that foul or not until you see whether the shot is good?

Of course not, but you probably already guessed that. The patient whistle is just to process the entire play and best judge whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Sometimes that does take a few seconds, sometimes it doesn't -- I'd rather have similar timing on each whistle, so I just try to slow down and have the patient whistle all the time.

Naw, I knew that.:)

Of course you should use a patient whistle on contact to decide if that contact was incidental or illegal. Ain't nobody in this thread that's really denying that afaik.

I was only addressing the question he was asking, not the play. The play in this thread is really was in my opinion and example of what we are ultimately talking about. We are talking about whether the shot going in should matter if we call a foul or rule the contact advantageous to the defender.

Not sure how that was confusing. I never quoted the guy, just answered his last question. Oh well.

Peace

LOL!!! :D

Peace

Why would you think that when he CLEARLY stated that they have been told to "throw advantage/disadvantage out the window" and that they will "never" get in trouble passing on marginal contact. Maybe you think he mispoke?

Reading is fundamental and comprehension is necessary. Where have I heard that before?

This is basically what I'm talking about.

Lets say A1 takes a turnaround jump shot at the free throw line. You're the Trail. You see B1 make contact with A1's arm. Should you wait to see if the contact "altered the shot" before you blow your whistle? Personally, if I see that, I blow the whistle and call the foul without worrying about whether or not the shot was altered. If it goes in we shoot one, if not we'll shoot two.

I will just speak for me and what I do. First of all I need to know the defender did something wrong. I think we call a lot of fouls on defenders when they did nothing wrong. ;)

That being said the trajectory of the flight of the ball does have something to do with if the contact was significant or a foul IMHO. Especially if I do not see all the contact or think the contact was not significant at the time.

Peace

Hmmm. I go away for several hours, and find you guys have been busy! I appreciate the responses.

If it helps, I'll offer a little clarity. Of course, I'm not talking about contact that so obvious that a competent official would call a foul. This isn't about clamping the shooter's arm. A fair example here is taking a swipe at the ball, and making unnecessary contact with the shooter's arm.

If I'm reading the replies correctly, I see there are several that would never, ever wait to see if a shot falls to determine whether a foul is called. Others are simply saying, "it depends."

There's been some talk about advantageous vs. marginal contact. Let me see if this changes anyone's answers...

A-1 shoots, B-2 makes marginal contact on A-1's arm, no whistle yet, ball bounces off the rim, tweet.

Does that make a difference in your original answer?

Nope. I consider the result of the play. I will also say the closer to the basket this is more likely to be the case. The further away from the basket it is more likely I will not care about the ball going in. Reason, there is more contact around the basket legal and illegal. I might have to take an extra second to determine if that contact near the basket made much of a difference.

Peace

1) Advantageous contact = illegal contact
Marginal contact = a judgment call as to whether the contact was illegal or incidental
It's that simple, bainsey.

2) The original answers do not apply to this situation because this situation in no way resembles your original situation. In your original situation, YOU told us the contact was illegal. That means there was NO judgment needed on our part. Illegal contact is a foul.


You're not offering clarity at all imo. Instead, you're putting forth 2 very different situations for comment.

It is, was and always will be a judgment call as to whether that "marginal" contact was illegal or incidental in nature. Having said that, in my experience a very slight contact on a player's shooting arm can greatly influence the accuracy of the shot, and especially so on a jump shot. The oldest trick in the book is a defender making a quick tap on the shooting elbow on a jump shot. That quick, wee touch can put the shot into the sixth row. Sooooo.....basically you have to make up your mind as to whether your "marginal" contact affected the shot or not. If you decide it did, the marginal contact should be ruled illegal contact. If you decide it didn't, the marginal contact should be called incidental contact. But....as I said above, it doesn't take much contact on a players shooting arm to affect a shot. If I see contact on the shooting arm on a jump shot, I'll usually call the foul. You also have to make the same decision for contact on a shooter's arm when the shooter is taking it to the hole. In that case, it might not be a bad idea to wait a beat to see whether the ball goes or not. The same holds true for contact on the shooter's body. No matter what though, it still remains as being a straight judgment call. The biggest recommendation I can give anyone is to just try to be as consistent as possible at both ends of the court from beginning to end.

There ya go, bainsey. I tried to answer both of your questions. :)