If I could change one rule, it would be....

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

How are they being rewarded? The opponent is sent to the FT line with a chance to score.

...with the clock stopped.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...with the clock stopped.

Until this is something that the NFHS/NCAA comes out and specifically says they want to change, I don't see the point of anyone, especially officials, tilting at windmills.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...with the clock stopped.

And? The clock is always stopped when we shoot FTs, not just at the end of the game. They're willing to commit a foul and allow the opponent an opportunity to score in exchange for an opportunity to stop the clock.
It's a strategy, nothing more, nothing less.

I guess we shouldn't recognize a excessive timeout in such a situation. After all, it's a technical foul and therefore, "illegal."

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I guess we shouldn't recognize a excessive timeout in such a situation. After all, it's a technical foul and therefore, "illegal."

That's not a very strong analogy, IMO, Ref.

For me, it comes down to advantageous contact. If the contact is trifling, and the offense can work through it (i.e. hand checking an opponent that's already passed you), then I believe you're rewarding the defense by stopping the clock, even if they're going to the line. If the defense is making an obvious play for the ball, then I believe the foul to be "earned." Intentional fouls are exactly as others have described.

Simply put, I don't believe in blowing the whistle just because the defense wants you to. I say, pursue the ball, and earn the foul. If contact becomes excessive, then penalize accordingly by crossing those arms.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's not a very strong analogy, IMO, Ref.

No, actually your original idea and this idea are very poor.

For me, it comes down to advantageous contact. If the contact is trifling, and the offense can work through it (i.e. hand checking an opponent that's already passed you), then I believe you're rewarding the defense by stopping the clock, even if they're going to the line. If the defense is making an obvious play for the ball, then I believe the foul to be "earned." Intentional fouls are exactly as others have described.

Simply put, I don't believe in blowing the whistle just because the defense wants you to. I say, pursue the ball, and earn the foul. If contact becomes excessive, then penalize accordingly by crossing those arms.

So you're telling me the only time you ever call a foul is when the defender is going for the ball?

The FED does not require that the ball be played in order to have a foul or not have an intentional foul. Fouls are also committed because the defender is playing the PLAYER.

Call the first foul and then you won't have "excessive contact. Hopefully, as you gain experience, you'll come to understand this better. If you're smart, you will.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, actually your original idea and this idea are very poor.



So you're telling me the only time you ever call a foul is when the defender is going for the ball?

Call the first foul and then you won't have "excessive contact. Hopefully, as you gain experience, you'll come to understand this better. If you're smart, you will.

And if it is intentional, there will be no advantage. It does not have to be excessive to be intentional. Especially if the lead is around 5 or 6 points, players sometimes get to the point of realizing they will not win and get in a hard foul. Getting that crap early gets you to the point where the offensive team holds the ball on his hip for the final 10 seconds much sooner.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

No, actually your original idea and this idea are very poor.

How so? I'd like some facts behind your opinion, sir.

So you're telling me the only time you ever call a foul is when the defender is going for the ball?

Of course not.

I understand your preventive officiating point of view, and I respect your experience, but I have never cared for the so-called "strategy" of fouling to stop the clock, and I believe if you're going to foul, at least you can try to steal the ball. (Such attempted steals are very seldom excessive.) Otherwise, I don't believe you deserve the advantage of a stopped clock, and as always, we need to be concerned about advantage/disadvantage.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

How so? I'd like some facts behind your opinion, sir.


Of course not.

I understand your preventive officiating point of view, and I respect your experience, but I have never cared for the so-called "strategy" of fouling to stop the clock, and I believe if you're going to foul, at least you can try to steal the ball. (Such attempted steals are very seldom excessive.) Otherwise, I don't believe you deserve the advantage of a stopped clock, and as always, we need to be concerned about advantage/disadvantage.

I don't like the strategy of a coach pressing when he is ahead 40 points in the 4th quarter. But if it is within the rules I cannot stop him or her from continuing. And what if the offensive team has good FT shooters? Or if a defender is spending his fifth foul and he is the best ball handler for them? Just because you do not LIKE something, doesn't mean you ignore it if it is illegal [a foul] or step in and stop something [a press] that you do NOT like.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I understand your preventive officiating point of view, and I respect your experience, but I have never cared for the so-called "strategy" of fouling to stop the clock, and I believe if you're going to foul, at least you can try to steal the ball. (Such attempted steals are very seldom excessive.) Otherwise, I don't believe you deserve the advantage of a stopped clock, and as always, we need to be concerned about advantage/disadvantage.

1. This shouldn't matter. We're not supposed to insert our own philosophies into the game. I don't like coaches pressing at the end of the game with a big lead, but I'm not so presumptuous to assume I can make calls against the rules to promote my philosophy. If the defense creates an advantage with their contact, call the damned foul. Whether you believe they deserve the advantage or not is irrelevant; the freaking NFHS rules committee has stated that this strategy is part of the game.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1. This shouldn't matter. We're not supposed to insert our own philosophies into the game. I don't like coaches pressing at the end of the game with a big lead, but I'm not so presumptuous to assume I can make calls against the rules to promote my philosophy. If the defense creates an advantage with their contact, call the damned foul. Whether you believe they deserve the advantage or not is irrelevant; the freaking NFHS rules committee has stated that this strategy is part of the game.

Deja vu, man.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I understand your preventive officiating point of view, and I respect your experience, but I have never cared for the so-called "strategy" of fouling to stop the clock, and I believe if you're going to foul, at least you can try to steal the ball. (Such attempted steals are very seldom excessive.) Otherwise, I don't believe you deserve the advantage of a stopped clock, and as always, we need to be concerned about advantage/disadvantage.

Well, unfortunately for you, the NFHS disagrees with you.

2006-07 NFHS Points of Emphasis
Intentional Fouls
"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."