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

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Deja vu, man.

Hah! The kids are playing WII and it took me a bit longer to write that.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hah! The kids are playing WII and it took me a bit longer to write that.

All I know is the "Be late. Be needed. Be right." philosophy might apply in some of those late game situations...

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Deja vu, man.

Looks like double whistles to me. Snaqs and 26 need to confer. (with BBR as the third man).

Very well, then. You have the facts (particularly BBR with the P.O.E. citation).

However, once again, I'm not talking about obvious advantageous contact. That should always be called, regardless of the time, and called intentional when necessary. Similarly, trifling contact is often ruled incidental throughout the game.

Never did I say to swallow your whistle. I'm talking about the tap on the back or arm when the dribbler has clearly passed the defender, and has an easy path toward his desired direction. Such contact is typically passed upon, as it didn't create a clear advantage.

If your message is "let the defense stop the clock by calling everything," aren't we abandoning the very advantage/disadvatange judgment we need to do our jobs effectively?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Looks like double whistles to me. Snaqs and 26 need to confer. (with BBR as the third man).

Very well, then. You have the facts (particularly BBR with the P.O.E. citation).

However, once again, I'm not talking about obvious advantageous contact. That should always be called, regardless of the time, and called intentional when necessary. Similarly, trifling contact is often ruled incidental throughout the game.

Never did I say to swallow your whistle. I'm talking about the tap on the back or arm when the dribbler has clearly passed the defender, and has an easy path toward his desired direction. Such contact is typically passed upon, as it didn't create a clear advantage.

If your message is "let the defense stop the clock by calling everything," aren't we abandoning the very advantage/disadvatange judgment we need to do our jobs effectively?

I'm not abandoning that entirely. I am mindful, though, that the defense is trying to foul in that situation. Therefore, if a player comes up and "reaches in" and contacts the ball handler, yes, I am calling that a bit differently than the rest of the game. I'm calling that foul. If I don't, that defender will foul a bit harder assuming that I didn't see the original foul attempt. Then the defender will knock the ball handler down.

I'm not saying I'll blow the whistle when the defender gets within a foot of the player, but I know the game situation and I'm mindful that the defense is going to attempt to foul quickly. My goal is to make sure that when the contact happens to get the foul and stop any possible escalation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Looks like double whistles to me. Snaqs and 26 need to confer. (with BBR as the third man).

Very well, then. You have the facts (particularly BBR with the P.O.E. citation).

However, once again, I'm not talking about obvious advantageous contact. That should always be called, regardless of the time, and called intentional when necessary. Similarly, trifling contact is often ruled incidental throughout the game.

Never did I say to swallow your whistle. I'm talking about the tap on the back or arm when the dribbler has clearly passed the defender, and has an easy path toward his desired direction. Such contact is typically passed upon, as it didn't create a clear advantage.

If your message is "let the defense stop the clock by calling everything," aren't we abandoning the very advantage/disadvatange judgment we need to do our jobs effectively?

I'm not answering for Rich, but I won't call the slap on the wrist if the dribbler is in the process of beating a defender who has essentially stopped playing defense in order to foul. If, however, the offense is just standing there waiting to be fouled, I'm not waiting for the arm to come off before calling a foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If your message is "let the defense stop the clock by calling everything," aren't we abandoning the very advantage/disadvatange judgment we need to do our jobs effectively?

Spin it all you want, no one has said that.

You've had several veteran officials explain to you how to manage this point in the game. It's about more than just blowing the whistle. My wife can blow a whistle. You'd be wise to try and pick up something here, rather than arguing about it.

[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."