The joys of my evening
 

I mentioned here my matchup last night where the home team was 1-18 and had scored 7 and 6 points in recent losses.

First things first. It was 62-40. The home team is 1-19 and the visiting team is now 2-7 in conference (its only 2 wins against this team). It was, unfortunately, the worst varsity basketball game I've ever worked, too. The players tried their best, certainly, but their best was probably at a 6th to 7th grade level in some areas and possibly lower.

But it had its share of oddities. We called at least 6 double dribbles, 15 travels, and 2 backcourt violations. We had 2 backcourt endline throw-ins go out of bounds untouched. I had a 4-point play (the JV official came into the locker room at halftime and said that for a play that rarely happens I looked like I sure had the signaling down for that).

I also had a technical foul. A player knocked another player off balanced and I whistled a foul. After the whistle, the same player gave her opponent a 2-handed shove to the back. Ended up being a 6-point play and the player's fourth and fifth fouls.

Then there's the old man fan in the crowd of 100 or so that started screaming on every call that went against the home team. The one time the guy did it, he was so unintentionally funny that my partner and I looked at each other and cracked up before the first free throw. I thought I had gotten over the giggles when we made eye contact before the second free throw and we cracked up again. It got to the point, though, where both my partner and I finally looked at the AD in the corner and said, "you going to take care of that?" The AD sighed and asked me, "Quiet him down or get him out of here?" in a way that tells me this wasn't a first time occurrence. I said, "Just quiet him down" while thinking that if I had to be there for it so did he.

My final regular season game on Tuesday was similar to this. Two not-very-good Class 1 (Smallest class) girls teams. Home team is a very small private school in the middle of town. Visitor is a rural school outside of our association's coverage, so I had never had them before.

V's coach would visibly react to every foul call that went against them, usually putting her hands up in the air. We're talking about routine fouls for a push or hand check in the middle of the second quarter that were only their 4th or 5th team fouls of the half. I didn't get a chance to talk to her before halftime, so the first time she did it in the second half, I was T so I walked back to her and told her that while she may not agree with every call, she needs to stop gesturing after a foul is called on her team. Thankfully that put an end to it.

The real funny was in the second half when the lead was exchanged several times. The Home team was in the BC and I was T. The H player with the ball picks up her dribble and throws a pass toward the FC, where one of her teammates jumps from the FC, catches the ball in the air, and lands in the BC. Of course I call the violation. The H fans went absolutely nuts. Coming out of their seats, screaming, gesturing, the whole nine yards. For a minute I thought I had blown it, thinking that the teammate had maybe had her foot on the division line when she jumped and I missed it, but later on my partner said that he saw her jump from the FC, as did one of the guys working the table. A few minutes later, a V player jumps to catch a pass but it deflects off of her hand and hits the floor, where she recovers it and then starts a dribble. Of course the braniacs from the H side were screaming for a double-dribble. I heard all the best lines for the rest of the game: "Take a certification test", "Get a rule book", "You need glasses".

The funny thing is that this was easily one of my two worst games of the year, and it also featured the worst fans of the season.

I hope this isn't your last game of the year or you will be hanging it up! I love the part where you got the giggles, I'm sure we've all almost broke our teeth biting the whistle to keep from laughing at some goofy move. Last week, BJV, a player dribbled the ball really high a couple of times and a fan yells out, "ear dribbler!" Struck me as very funny and I grinned but didn't laugh and of course later that night a friend of mine asked me what I was grinning at.

Worst as in the way you performed on the game or as in worst assignment?

Ironic sometimes, isn't it?

One of the worst games as in the level of play and teams. Considering the type of game it was, I thought we did fine. I told my partner that the game was harder to officiate than any Class 4 or 5 boys game I had done this year. No flow, lots of fouls, traveling violations, etc.

Very. I had to giggle a little bit.

Oh yeah, when I had the no-call on the illegal dribble, some guy yells "This isn't the YMCA!!". I wanted to reply "No, it's worse!".

I've seen that show quite a few times! More decisions to make for sure.

"Was it... wasnt it... she played through it... oh no hes going down... forget about it"

Rich,

You get all the "big" games...LOL!

Someone's gotta work them, I guess. :D

Back to the boys side tonight. Although I have a girls game next Thursday with two teams with 1 conference loss between them. The home team needs to win to split the conference title.

As one of the JV officials said to us at halftime, "Having you two here for this game is like killing an ant with a sledgehammer."

The JV game was 90-8.

Same JV guy you referenced in the OP?

{And the fan was trying to kill the ant with a magnifying glass. Which is a lot more fun btw.}

Did we work together last night? I had a similar game.... http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...3-hours-2.html

Did he yell something specific this time that was funny or was he just nutsoid in general? If it was something specific, can you share?

Kid goes up with about a four foot jump shot. Defender takes a big swing and knocks the shooter to the floor on the shooter's way down. Easy, easy foul.

Guy starts screaming "that's not a foul, the shot was gone, how can you call that" and went on and on. It was just absurd.

My game tonight was no better. Visiting coach has gotten whacked by both of us in the past. As usual, he was a condescending a$$ at the tip and got worse as the game progressed. We ignored most of the nonsense coming from the bench, although I had to shut the assistant down.

A rare Saturday off. I'm thrilled.

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy ???
 

Not to at least one esteemed Forum member.

Well, that would be absurd, not protecting an airborne shooter to the floor.

Airborne Shooter ???
 

I'm sure he'll be moseying along shortly to give his rationale.

Why did that philosophy not apply here?

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ood-block.html

Because the contact was incidental to a clean block of the basketball. In my case the defender took a wild swing, missed the ball, and knocked the shooter to the floor.

Context matters. You sound like a coach who says "the same thing happened at the other end of the floor and you didn't call a foul."

If there was contact, it was not a clean block.

"Incidental contact" which knocks the shooter to the floor is ok, but a "wild swing" which knocks the shooter to the floor is not?

There most definitely can be a clean block even if there's contact.

If the contact puts the shooter on the floor?

I'm just addressing your statement that sounded like you were saying if there's contact, it isn't a clean block.

Poorly worded. We're discussing a specific play from a previous thread.

I was just clarifying for those that didn't know the context of the sentence. And for what it's worth, I thought JRut's and Rich's explanations in the other thread were pretty sufficient. I see the difference in this play and the one in the previous thread as, the player missed the ball completely on this play.

Which is far different from the play I had. No comparison whatsoever.

(BTW, I do consider getting the ball clean up top reason to excuse some contact that happens afterwards. A wild swing and a miss (of the ball) by a player trying to defend? Not so much.)

If the guy swung at the ball and missed, and in doing so contacted the shooter on his way down, why is this not incidental?

I really don't care to debate this further with the belted one who scabs for $31 a game, but I am interested in what you mean by this....

Umm...that's a complete typo. I meant to say, I THOUGHT. Don't even ask how I messed that one up. :o

Now you sound like a coach. You don't like the way things are going so you resort to making a snide personal remark. Classy.

Just as classy as using another thread and then using my remarks out of context.

Besides, you are using (as I mentioned earlier) the time-honored coach tactic of saying "if this isn't a foul, how can this be a foul" in the process.

What's good for the goose and all that....

Agreed.

Peace

There's a huge difference. The coach in question saw the plays. We often say to ourselves, "If he couldn't see the difference, there's no way I can explain it."

Here, nobody saw the play in question. If you want something understood, you have no choice but to explain. We had two plays (one with video, one without) where an airborne shooter was knocked to the floor. One you said was not a foul. The other you not only said was a foul, you said it was absurd not to protect the airborne shooter to the floor. I asked what the difference was. I thought I was asking a legitimate question, rather than prolonging a previous argument.......this time.:D

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot. Unless I missed something, where contact takes place first without any contact with the ball that is totally different. And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul. Unless you have never worked a boy's game, shooters get knocked to the floor all the time. That does not mean it was a foul or that the defender did anything wrong or illegal. There are times when a shooter causes all the contact and fall the floor. Now if you are one of those officials that call everything in the benefit of the shooter no matter what, then that is why we have POEs every year talking about why we should not call fouls on the defense and we must review things like LGP and even Verticality. Basketball players do fall and nothing should be called sometimes. Nowhere does it say every time a shooter falls there must be a foul or that the defender did something illegal. But again you keep asking as if those rules are to only protect the shooter from falling.

Peace

That's what I read also. In the first play, the explanation as I understand it, was that the contact was incidental to a block which was (I agreed) clean on top. The contact, which came after the block, did not affect the shot, so therefore was not a foul. But in the second play, there is a missed block attempt. The shooter is subsequently contacted on his way down and is also knocked to the floor. Like the first play, the shot was not affected. Why is the second play a foul while the first is not?



I believe what I said was that when a defender who is actively making a play knocks an airborne shooter to the floor, never say always, but this is pretty much gonna be a foul.

All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul. I know I do not call fouls on screens that are legally set and the player being screened falls to the ground hard as a result. So why is this play so hard to understand. One play had a clean block (which means they got to the ball first and legally) and the other the player made contact, then made the block. Again, I am not going to continue to argue this with you, but just will say that if you call that in the places I work, you will not be working very long. And those that usually call the game like this, do not work with a lot of tall or athletic players. And I almost never see an experienced official call these plays fouls but when I read this board someone like you claims we have to call a foul on these "becasue the shooter got knocked to the floor." Like there are never shooters that fall to the floor and we have never seen a foul not called.

Well I do not have to work with you, so call what you like. ;)

Peace

Incidental contact
 

J Rut
QUOTE:All I can say is that the rules on incidental contact are very clear and say that contact can be severe and not be a foul. That means that a player can be knocked to the floor for all kinds of things and not have a foul.

Please, help me understand your philosophy. When I read 4-27-2, and 4-27-3, neither seems to fit a scenario in which the contact, "even though it may be severe" would be caused by a defender trying to block a shot; or if that contact appears to be caused by only one of the the players involved - "...when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements..." "...contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."
It does seem that contact which causes an airbourne opponent to be unable to maintain balance, upon returning to the floor more fits a description of illegal contact.
(I do a lot of mentoring of newer/younger officials in my area, and am always looking for the philosophy/wording that will best help them to understand a valid "no-call".)
Thanks in advance.

Well if someone is there shot is blocked (first) I do not consider a defender to have much to do with preventing the shooter from movement illegally.

Peace

Like Jeff, all I can say is that the philosophy on higher level boys basketball is that if the player clearly got all ball going up we're going to allow some contact on the way down. This doesn't mean we're going to allow a player to land on top of another player, but I think the play in question doesn't put the offensive player at a disadvantage subsequent to the block. The ball's heading out of bounds clearly and immediately and the play dictates (to me, anyway) that this simply be called an out of bounds violation and we move on.

Others that I respect disagree with this. That's OK. JAR is the only one trying to bring another play into question. I can easily explain one over the other, but I'm not sure it's really necessary:

(1) The girl (and the first play wouldn't happen in a girls game) swung and missed. I think that JAR sarcastically compared this to a roughing the kicker call in football and I actually liked the comparison. Getting the ball clean does make a difference to me. It does make me weigh the contact differently - in context.

(2) The ball goes immediately out of bounds in the first play. That also matters, IMO. There's no way anyone can be put at a rebounding disadvantage by a little contact subsequent to the shot. And yes, at that level and even at a good HS boys level, that's a little contact. Again, I'd have to put it in context with everything else that's happening in a game. It's one helluva athletic play to go up and get that ball and I'm not going to take that away because the shooter gets bumped, loses his balance, and falls to the ground, *especially* when the ball is immediately directed out of bounds..

(3) It's expected that in high level boys/mens games that the contact meter be dialed down a bit, at least where I work. On a block like that (first play, other thread), nobody would blink an eye at the subsequent contact. Those that would reflexively call that a foul without at least weighing all the other factors probably call a lot more fouls than is expected at that level. Again, I have great respect for those who call that a foul, but at least they are weighing the block against the contact and determining that there's too much contact there. I can live with that -- officials can disagree on a play but one thing I'm never going to do as an official is try to compare one play to another and try to use an official's judgment or words on an IBB to trip him up, like JAR did.

(4) The Yahoo link is now broken for the original play, but it's here now: YouTube - HD - Sasha Pavlovic block on Sebastian Telfair vs. Timberwolves - 2/7/11

J Rut and Rich,
Thank you for your input. We're into our state play-offs, and will soon be doing spring ball, and then our summer camps. Your input is greatly appreciated, as are many of the threads on this site.
Much of my enjoyment in officiating is through helping newer officials realize their potential, and move up in their assignments. Incidental contact, no-call philosophy, are areas where the best officials shine. Younger, inexperienced officials are often confused by what they see not being called. And unless an official gets to a point of applying valid principles in such plays, their progress will be stymied.
Thanks, agasin.

This is definitely an area I can focus on as the AAU season approaches. That & held ball 'stuffs' are two areas I can definitely work on to improve. Thanks.

Comparing one play to another is only natural as one tries to achieve consistency. Having said that, the original account made no mention of the fact that it was a girls game. That does change a lot. It is a different game.
Having said that, I think protecting the airborne shooter to the floor applies strongly at all levels.

For me, if I ever worked a girls game that featured this level of athleticism, I'd call it the same way. It's just that in most cases advantage/disadvantage comes with less contact.

Quite frankly, the small school rural boys games are called differently than the big city schools because of the differences in style of play and athleticism. A few years ago there was a big controversy when the big school coach called out the assignment of rural officials in a state playoff game where almost all contact was called a foul. The comments were decried by many, but to be completely honest, I understood where the coach was coming from.

Without a doubt, this comes into play, on fouls and violations as well. My association is the rural association in the above equation, and most of our schools are smaller schools. In one of the nights I had this year involving the bigger schools, we called very obvious (to me) traveling on one of the point guards in the girls game probably at least 5 times. I kind of felt bad for her, because she apparently had been allowed to make the same move all year. But, hey, after the 2nd or 3rd call, a player must sometimes make an adjustment.

And this is why I like the fact for the most part our state separates the officials for the post season accordingly based on what they normally work. Then again you once in a while get officials working a talented player and do not know how to officiate that player who happens to be a D1 player playing with mostly smaller schools. Not always a good thing.

Peace

Think of this. Hard, fast drive to the basket from the wing by A1 (small guard). B1 (big body center) comes straight down the lane line toward the endline on the same side and jumps to block the shot. B1 legally beats A1 to the basket and while in the air cleanly blocks the ball and the two bodies come together and A1 ends up falling to the floor and the ball goes straight out of bounds. You have two bodies, basically getting to the same spot at practically the same time, contact which can be hard given the speed, and the ball going out of bounds. To me this is a no call even with possibly severe contact.

Another is drive by A1 one to the basket at B1. B1 jumps up vertically and blocks the ball and is contacted by A1 (also airborne) with such force that B1 is bent over the top of A1 and A1 ends up on the ground. To me, this is either a no call or possibly a player control foul on A1 even though A1 got the brunt of the contact.

In both situations, to me, B1 did nothing illegal and the shooter ended up on the ground after contact.

1) To me that's foul on B1. They're not playing football out there. You've got a defender that never came close to having LGP running over a shooter. Whether the defender got the ball or not while doing so is completely irrelevant by rule. And if there was severe contact, I'd think about maybe calling an intentional or flagrant foul also. If B1 really had beat A1 to the basket, then you wouldn't have 2 bodies getting to the same spot at the same time.

2) And this call depends on whether the defender had a LGP too. If so, I agree. HTBT.

I can see your point on 1 and both, in reality, would be htbt plays.

When In Connecticut, Protect The Airborne Shooter ...
 

High school varsity officials around here would rule this a foul on the defender. The only way that some would pass on this would be if the defender, and the shooter, were moving more, or less, parallel to each other and contact occurred. But just because it's a foul in my little corner of Connecticut, doesn't mean that it's a foul all over the rest of the officiating world.

Maybe, but it would take a lot more than what I have read to call a foul here. BTW, football we can have fouls for a lot less contact depending on the play. We can have no contact in baseball and have a violation of the rules. I never get that reference.

Peace

I've been following these two discussions very intently, only because I want to discern the difference between the thinking on what is considered incidental contact vs. a foul.

I certainly understand the same contact can be incidental in one situation, while a foul in another. I have had conversations with coaches and players who have asked for a foul when the shooter's arm is contacted, but the shot has left the hand. They seem to feel that contact on the shooter's arm is foul no matter what, while we all agree the unfair advantage is when the contact affects the shot with the ball still in the hand, and there is no advantage once the ball has left the hand. I also understand incidental contact can be "severe", and the level of contact alone does not have a direct bearing on whether to call a foul.

But I'm still trying to understand the concept of how the bar for determining incidental contact gets changed in certain circumstances. Rich, I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but since it's your thread, ;) I'll ask you - how does the sitch you mentioned in this thread differ from the play in the video in the other thread? In both cases, the shooter was knocked to the floor. Now, I understand they are 2 different plays: girls vs. boys, wild swing and miss vs. body contact after clean block, etc.

But my questions come from some of the comments made about why they are so different. You say the no-call in the video is "expected" in a higher-level boys game. You also mentioned the allowed level of contact in the video would be greater because the ball went directly OOB, so there was no advantage in the shooter being knocked to the floor. Why shouldn't the same standard of protecting the shooter apply in both plays? Would your call/no-call be different if your play in this thread happened during a higher-level boys game, and the play in the video was during a girls game? Would the call in this thread be different if the ball was blocked OOB before the same contact? Would your no-call in the video play be any different if the ball stayed in-bounds after the block?

As to the comment about what is "expected" at a certain level - who gets to make that determination? Are you saying your calls/no-calls will be based on what coaches, players and fans expect? Granted, I understand you need to do what your "bosses" expect, and that could be your assignors, or even the AD's, if you contract directly with the schools. I know no one wants to be "That Guy", who makes calls outside the expected norm. But let me give you an example - I have worked with many a veteran partner who has made the "expected" call of a travel when the player is fumbling the ball while taking a couple of steps. No one ever complains when this incorrect call is made, and if the call is not made, coaches, players and fans all react negatively. (The carry violation on the high dribble is another example.) Should I start making this incorrect call, because it's "expected"? Or should I continue to make the correct call, and not worry about what the coaches and players expect? If this example isn't the same as the "expected" no-call in the video block, why is it different?

And all I can give you is my personal opinion fwiw.

There is nothing anywhere in the rules that I am aware of that states legal contact by a defender on the ball has any relation at all as to whether illegal contact has also been made by the defender on the shooter. Quite simply, by rule it doesn`t matter whether a shot was blocked or not when it comes to determining whether a foul should or shouldn`t be called. The only thing that matters is for us to determine whether there was illegal contact on the shooter before, during or after that legal block. And it is always a judgment call as to what is legal, incidental contact and what is a foul (illegal contact). There`s different criteria used to judge the legality of a defender`s actions...LGP, verticality, etc. But if a defender jumps into or under an airborne shooter, then the defender is causing the contact and that should be called. And if that contact is severe, well, we`ve been told to protect the airborne shooter and we`ve also been told to get rid of the illegal physicality we`ve been letting go.

JMO.

There is nothing in the rules that says a player knocked to the floor is a foul either. If a small guard goes directly at a big and muscular 7 foot player, the taller and bigger player is not likely going to get knocked to the floor. So I really will never understand why that is the standard for calling a foul. Of course if the defender does something illegal I have no problem calling a foul. I think officials find more reasons not to call fouls than reasons to call a foul. But being knocked to the floor is not my criteria. And we also call things in the game that are "expected" or "usual" as well as things that are illegal. Which is why for many years we would not call "hand checking" of a player could play through the contact. And I have yet to see anyone call a PC foul near the basket when a defender is contacted and they do not go flying out of the way. I see this play or how it is called the same way.

Peace

I'll get to this, but it may not be today. I have a bunch of work to do the next 2 days and I have games tonight, tomorrow, and Thursday nights and a meeting on Wednesday night. Hard to believe it's March and I'm still this busy, but my activity level will fall off a cliff soon. :D

The contact in the above play as described is, by definition, illegal. If it is the custom in your area to ignore this contact (foul) under certain circumstances, (ball "cleanly" blocked out of bounds) so long as it is acceptable to all parties involved, I suppose this is fine. But it is difficult to support the position that this is not, by rule, a foul.

You may want to check out NFHS case book play 4.19.3SitB then. It's pretty explicit.

4.19.3SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. as A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds.
RULING: An intentional foul should be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball.

The FED is telling us:
1) it doesn't matter if the defender got a hand on the ball
2) it's always a judgment call but if the shooter is whacked to the floor and OOB, not only should it be a foul but it should be an intentional foul for excessive contact.

Take your time; I wasn't expecting a quick answer. :D

This is not about a rule, this is about judgment. A blocked shot is going to be very hard to expect player(s) fall and if the falling is the only part that say should be a foul, you need to show me the rule that says so. You will not find one.

Peace

That assumes that all contact puts the player to the floor. A player going to the basket will fall and does all the time with contact. This is why it is a judgment call. Good for the NF, but that does not mean it it going to change how I and others view this play. ;)

Peace

No it doesn't. I believe the quote is, "...and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds." Iow, the defender initiated the contact and as a result of the contact, A1 went to the floor. This case play seems to contradict the apparent "expectation" in some games that as long as the shot was blocked cleanly, the contact afterwards could be ignored.

No one has argued about a small guard bouncing off a large post player who has LGP, or a player running into well-set screen and getting creamed. We all agree incidental contact can be severe, and we all agree a player going to the floor does not mean a foul occurred.

You bring up handchecking in a previous post, and that actually is a point I wanted to make. You mentioned that handchecking was not called for years, with the expectation that as long as the player can "play through it", it was not going to be called a foul. The NFHS has clearly stated in recent POE's that officials have not been calling handchecking as often as they should. Perhaps in higher level boys' games, the expectation was/is that handchecking is a cheap foul and should not be called, where the rules committee has repeatedly said it needs to be called more often. Isn't this the same issue we have with the blocked shot and contact afterwards? There is an "expectation" in certain games that certain calls are made or not made, even though they may be in direct contradiction to the rules.

Maybe you're not understanding my questions - I'm not here necessarily to say one way is right and the other wrong. I know there are gray areas. But how do you tell a smaller school official what would be a foul in their game would not be a foul in a large-school game? Why is that? Yes, the "expectation" is different, but should we as officials give in to that expectation? If so, should we also give in to the expectation that a high dribble is somehow a violation? Everyone wants is called, and no one complains when it is. Same thing?

I need a break from fighting with SQL Server.

What's forcefully to you is not necessarily forcefully to me. In the end, it's all judgment. To me, the play in the NBA video is not forcefully -- I even acknowledge if the defender had landed on the shooter or done something of that nature, I'd call a foul. I *am* protecting the shooter all the way down, but not from all contact.

I am not talking about the case play in question. I am talking about the people that want to find a situation that means a player that goes to the floor is a foul. I see that all the time and it is not called (and no one goes crazy). Just like I see an airborne shooter go hard into a defender and the defender does not move and we do not see a PC foul either. And that is not what the rules suggest, but it is not called that way for sure.

LGP is not the only way we determine a foul. If a dribbler pushes off on a defender and displaces that defender, I do not care whether they are in LGP at the time of the contact. That is a guide to let us call a foul when contact takes place, but does not apply across the board on all kinds of plays or absolve the ball handler of being the cause of contact.

And I still call hand-checking when there is displacement and a player is put at a disadvantage. I do not call hand-checking and never will for a defender simply putting their hand on the ball handler. Oh, and the POEs almost never talk about the other rules that apply with incidental contact, but never change the rules to those rules. Actually I use the RSBQ philosophy to call hand-checking and anytime a player puts their hand on the dribbler that will get special attention, but not an automatic every time that action happens. And for the record I call a lot of hand-checking fouls as I use the RSBQ philosophy.

I do not think you understand my point either. I am not saying that I am not going to assume players that come together it is the fault of the defense. I am going to give the defense a lot of leeway on these plays as an offensive player is and can be out of control in these situations. And bigger players tend to knock over smaller players all the time and yes that is going to be a factor to me. And to equate a complete misunderstood rule to a philosophy to help cause consistency in a call is not the same thing. Again, this might be OK in certain games, but if you do this in others you will not work. Like my mom used to tell me often, you can be right and dead at the same time. If you call this and you never work I hope that rulebook makes you comfortable as you are watching (not you personally, but those that think that officiating is always about what is in the black and white of that rulebook). Just sharing what I have been taught, again I do not have to work with most here so anyone can choose to do what they want. But I have rarely ever seen a big 6'6" kid not knock over a kid much smaller than him when a player goes to the basket, so I choose to be very careful when calling this a foul. And this is one of many situations I am going to give the defense the benefit of the doubt unlike many officials I observe that do not know any better and call everything on the defense.

Out of all the years I have gone to camps, I have yet for anyone on these kinds of plays to tell me that when I passed on such a play to call a foul. I have had someone I worked with that called a foul told to let that go. That is telling to me as I have been all over the Midwest to officiating camps.

Peace

Ok, if it comes down to a simple disagreement as to your judgement on the level of contact vs. someone else's, or who is responsible for initiating contact, I can probably live with that. I guess I was reacting to some of the qualifications made to justify the no-call, such as "the blocked ball went directly OOB, so the shooter wasn't really put at a disadvantage". Are you saying if the ball did not go OOB, would it have been a foul?

I can even agree somewhat with ignoring some contact if the block was clean to begin with, but at some point if the contact puts the shooter on the ground, isn't that an advantage, no matter where the ball went? If you tell me in the video the shooter was off-balance, and they were just as responsible for the contact as the defender, then I don't see an issue here, and maybe I'm getting all worked up over nothing? :)

In this particular quote the word forcefully is used to specify that this is not only a foul, but can in this circumstance ("clean block" up top) be called intentional if the contact is excessive. Following this line of reasoning, any (illegal) contact which (gently?) knocks the airborne shooter to the floor will usually be regarded as a foul.

I'm not one of those, so we agree. :)

We still agree. So far, so good.

We may disagree slightly, but not by much.

Bingo. Here is the heart of my question(s):

Why not? Who gets to determine what philosophies work in certain games, but do not in others, under the same rules? I'm not talking about NFHS vs. NCAA, or girls vs. boys, but the philosophy that, perhaps, the contact as shown in the video might be a foul in a small school boys' game, but would be expected to be a no-call in a large-school game. Again, I'm not saying your statement above is wrong; I actually agree that it is probably true. But why wouldn't we strive to have the same philosophies at all levels within a particular rule set?

In these parts that person would be our commissioner/assignor. And right or wrong, it's something an official needs to grasp the nuances of in trying to transition from small-school schedule to a big-school schedule. Just like HS officials making the move from HS to college.

As I've slowly moved my way up the ladder I have found there are a lot of things that an official is expected to know without actually being taught.

I'm not sure this is what I'm saying -- if it's what I said earlier, I'm not communicating well. The NBA play probably wouldn't be called a foul *by me* in an NCAA game or a HS game, boys or girls (although it wouldn't happen in a girls game and probably wouldn't happen in most small school rural games).

Just saying that I'd not be surprised if an official that works primarily small school rural games would more than likely call that a foul and nobody would say that this foul shouldn't be called. Step it up a notch or 6 and we have discussions like this.

It's not an easy thing, that's for sure. But when we have discussions about consistency at, say, the D-I NCAA level (which I don't work, but it's clear that some conferences play more physical ball than others) the disparity in the athletes from the top of D-I to the bottom of D-I is much less than the disparity I see at some D1 (big) city schools and most D5 (small) rural schools and it only makes sense that the game is going to (de facto) be called differently in those games as the quality of play, athleticism, and ability to play through contact is quite a bit different. But if a player in a girls game or a small school boys game got up like in the NBA play, swatted it away, and there's a bump subsequent where a player ends up off balance and on the floor? Probably calling the out of bounds and moving on.

In a nutshell what we have is: Yeah, that may be the rule, but we don't call that.

I find this to be

a. more and more prevalent.

b. quite problematic

The people that do the hiring get to determine. And in the case of the NCAA, if they have a problem with the way this play is being called, they can put in on their bulletins and other literature. The NF does not have that kind of power other than to give a ruling and I have yet to read something that says that these should be a commonly called foul (Like our uniform rule). The only play I see is an intentional foul call and still that involves judgment. Again to act like there are things that are not "custom" is silly. Hardly any of us here work for the same people. That even includes you and me and we are in the same state (and you are a Cubs Fan and that brings another set of challenges LOL!!!). I am also not telling you or others what to do. I am just stating what I have always been taught to do and the justification behind it. If you disagree that is fine with me. I have to answer to those I work for and not those on this site. Then again we all have plays people would love to be called, but it not going to happen the way we would like at all times.

Peace

I find it to be more a case of you reading what you want to read in the ruling, hanging your hat on it, and saying that those that don't read it your way aren't doing their jobs.

Is that close?

Yup.

And when you work games that have multiple D-I prospects one night and a varsity game the next night where either team could be beaten easily by the freshman teams from the night before, you start to understand that you *have* to adapt from one night to another. Despite what some say, it's not the same game. Not even close.

At the higher level camps I've been to, and from what I've been told by assigners/supervisors, an official must see the whole play begin, develop, finish, and then decide whether a whistle is needed. Granted, all of those steps take place at high speed. However, seeing the whole play from start through finish is key. It is not problematic as JAR wrote. It is simple officiating. To me, and the way I read RUT's and other posts, we are simply stating that if throughout the entire play, the defense has done nothing illegal (stays within his/her plane, etc), there could very well be contact (maybe severe) that is not illegal. At a D1 camp last summer, I was told to look at every contact situation with the following thoughts; "Did the defender do anything that he/she was not entitled to do within the rules? And, just because there was contact, was the contact marginal, or incidental given the movement of the players, or illegal?" If the contact was marginal or incidental, there should not be a whistle. I believe too often, we see contact and put air in the whistle without ever letting the play finish.

Jeff, remember, I'm not telling you what you're doing is wrong by any means. I agree you have to do what works for you in getting assigned.

But my question to you, Rich, and BadNews, is why do we have these different philosophies, and how can we get them to be a little more standard? I can tell you that this forum is valuable in helping people in one part of the country understand what is happening in other parts. But we even have these differences within the same state, and sometimes within the same areas. This is exactly why Rich mentioned the complaints about how a state tournament game was called - the officials called it one way because that's the way they were used to calling it, while the team that participated was used to a different philosophy.

Oh, and one last thing:

[insert pic of middle finger]

You just better hope Michigan football isn't at the beginning of their 100-year run of futility. :p

Rich, I don't think this is what I'm asking about. Of course, specific contact one night might be easy for the D-1 prospect to play through, while the exact same contact the next night will knock the player to the floor. And it's a no-call one night, and a foul the next. I think most of us get that.

With regards to the video play, even you mentioned it won't be a foul in NCAA or some HS games, but it could be a foul in other HS games. I'm not asking about the level of contact, but rather the results - in some HS games the shooter getting knocked to the floor is not a foul, because it was a clean block first, while in other HS games the fact the shooter was knocked to the floor would be the reason for the foul, no matter what happened to the ball. This is the reason for my confusion. Why do they have to be different? Why can't we say a clean block will allow more contact to be deemed incidental, at all levels? Or, why do we have to allow more contact at some levels, because it's "expected"?

Again, I think maybe I wasn't communicating well. My point was that the officials assigned to that smaller school game (who are more likely to be officials that work fewer varsity games or ONLY work at the small schools) may well call that a foul. I'd prefer they didn't and I'd be doing my best to apply the same standard on one night as the other, but I'm just being realistic -- I don't think that's happening.

I believe in trying to let girls (heaven forbid) play through contact, too, and that drives a lot of players and coaches nuts and I just don't understand that. A monkey could officiate games where ALL contact is called -- that's not what we're out there for. One girls coach I've heard speak at a camp where I was a clinician gets it -- she's said, "I hate officials that call a completely different game in a girls game than in a boys game." I'm not saying that the advantage/disadvantage threshold may not end up being different, but they go out with the intention of calling the girls game "tighter" and that drives that coach crazy.

Ok, well maybe we're not that far apart after all. I agree with what you've said above.

So, you must be a Cub fan too. ;) :p

+1

No, Phillies. And a Brewers 20-game plan holder. :D

And what's really funny to me is when I watch the D1 guys that I consider excellent officials, none of 'em seem to come in with the pre-conceived notions that I've been reading in the last few pages. They all seem to just call each play separately and individually on it's own merits without saying "Oh, he got the ball. That can't be a foul." If they feel the contact was illegal, they just call it. And the amazing part is they also call it before the ball goes in too, without worrying about "patient whistles", etc.


Novel idea, ain't it? :)

I believe in the patient whistle, but whether the ball goes in has no bearing whatsoever on whether I call a foul. The patient whistle, to me, has always meant that we don't anticipate calls. Let the play start, develop, finish, decide, call (or no call). I don't look at the ball going through the hoop and say, "Screw it, he scored anyway. Let's not stop the game with a pointless "and-one." And yet I have heard other officials say that they've had too many "and ones" whatever that means. I don't care if I have 0 or 10 as long as the foul called is one where the foul put the shooter at a disadvantage (which has nothing to do with the ball not going in the hole, IMO).

I certainly do think D1/NBA officials will see a clean, athletic block up top and will consider that as part of the decision making process, so I guess we'll have to disagree there. It's a great defensive play -- it doesn't give the player license to be out of control or flatten the shooter, but some contact on the way down isn't necessarily going to be a foul, either. We make fun of the NBA(E) all the time, but those guys are excellent play callers when it comes to fouls, IMO. YMMV.

Off to do a game.

Actually Rich my philosophy to call the game is pretty much the same in every game I work. I try not to worry too much about the talent of the players. I think that keeps me consistent when I work a small school game to a college game. Obviously the players do not handle contact the same, but the same philosophy applies to have a slow whistle and to call what needs to be called. And one of the reasons I stay away from girl's basketball as well. I cannot handle the crying for fouls when the defenders or the other players do nothing illegal. I had to give it up and stick with
Boy’s/men's basketball.

I was not taking it that way. Just stating what I do and what I have been doing for a long time. What others do is up to them.

I do not think you will ever get all officials to agree on anything. We all do not work the same kind of ball or the same type of athletes and certainly not at the high school level for sure. I think we should do what we feel is best and let those decide what works and if they like us they will hire us for bigger games. Not sure we can ever get everyone to call something a certain way when we are all not equally talented or have the same officiating backgrounds. It sounds great, but I still say it is impossible when there are thousands of officials that work games across a state or a region of the country.

Didn't we beat you this year? :p

I'm not a D1 guy you would see on TV. But I also do not have a pre-conceived notion. I said specifically on the NBA play that was posted that I have supervisors and observers who would not want that specific play called as a foul.

Whether they have pre-conceived notions or not, I have not see said play called a foul when there is a clean block in the conferences I watch. Again, I have seen fouls called when the block was not clean, but I have seen that play on SportsCenter many times not called a foul. So whatever you want to believe is up to you. But I go to camps where I have seen guys that we see on TV often and I know what they have said about plays that I have called when they are observing. No one here that disagrees with you as pulled this out of the air. ;)

Peace

I have...in every D1 conference I've watched. By the big dawgs too. And that includes your Chicago area big dawgs also btw.

The definition of a foul is illegal contact on an opponent. It doesn't say anywhere that the exact SAME illegal contact magically becomes legal if a defender touches the ball. If you think hammering an airborne shooter into the fifth row is always legal if the defender got the ball, hey, feel free to call it that way.

We've hit the usual logjam on this ever-recurring discussion. We just don't agree philosophically. :)

We all seem to be in agreement that as player skill increases, contact which would have been a foul at lower skill levels becomes incidental contact at the higher level.

I think what Rich is pointing out is it can take a while for officials to adjust their mindsets to what level of contact is incidental as they move higher skill level games. An official who routinely works small school ball is going to call a tighter game because small school players have a harder time playing through contact due to a generally lower skill level. If you take that official and put him in a big school game and he doesn't adjust his mindset, he's going to call fouls on contact that are incidental for that game but would not have been incidental in the games he usually works.

This is where having a patent whistle is important. Waiting to see if the contact puts the player off-balance or forces him to shoot awkwardly allows us to call fouls on contact that actually put the player at a disadvantage.

This is how I see it also. In one particularly brutal evaluation of one of my games by a college supervisor he said I was making "high school" calls. Basically that I was making calls on contact that college players can play through and that my veteran partners had been passing on.

This. Thanks for summing up (very well) what I was trying to say.

When you have to pick your *** up off of the floor, consider it a disadvantage.

Not if nothing illegal put you there. And round and round we go...

True, but that's not the argument made here. The same contact, if it happened prior to the shot being blocked, is ruled a foul. The same contact, if the shot is never blocked, is ruled a foul. Where in the rules does it say that it even matters if the shot is blocked?

Who would that be, because most of the camps I go to most of the guys are not from Illinois. And when I said before you can turn on ESPN and at least one guy that night that I have been to a camp and they have watched a game I have worked at camp, those individuals are not at all from Chicago either.

Again you keep mischaracterizing what I have said or the situation. Most of these plays have little or nothing to do with someone being on the floor or even in the 5th row. For one I would call a foul regardless of what row they are in if the defender did not get to the ball first. After that, unless the player tried to put them there and we are just playing basketball, then most contact is going to be considered incidental (the rules covers this).

I recognized that a long time ago and never tried to convince you or others to change what you believe. ;)

Peace

And that's my point....well, along with the fact that I am seeing fouls called at the D1 level for contact that occurred either before, during or after a clean block. Good block or not, if the shooter is getting wiped out, the foul will be called. It's a judgment call and you have to adjudicate each and every call on it's own merit.

It's completely irrelevant if the contact is being called differently at the NCAA D1 level than high school. What matters though is...unless I'm going completely blind and stoopid....that it IS being called at the D1 level. If the Big Dawgs feel that an airborne shooter got schmucked, they'll call it...clean block or not

Sooooooo.... please don't try to tell me that type of play doesn't or shouldn't get called at the D1 level. I have cable and a dish. :D

Sure, but the question is did the contact put you there or did you decide to fall down.

The question each ref has to ask is did the contact take the player to the ground or did the player dive? If the contact took the player to the ground, it shouldn't matter how nice the block was up top, the lower body contact allowed the block to happen (otherwise the defender wouldn't be close enough to make the block).

On the other hand, if the contact shouldn't have been enough to knock down the shooter, it's incidental contact even if the shooter chooses to fall down anyways.

Our standard cannot be did the shooter fall down. It must be was he knocked down.

This is the line (between what contact should unbalance a shooter and should not unbalance a shooter) that is changing with the skill level.

It's more than that. If the shooter is a bit unbalanced coming down and a bump from the defender caused the shooter to fall, it's not necessarily a foul, either.

Was the shooter in the NBA game "knocked down"? I really don't think so. I think he came down a bit unbalanced and got bumped and went down. So, *to me*, it's a reasonable no call.

Agreed.

+1 Every play needs to be looked separately from start, develop, finish and then decide. The play as a whole is what makes a foul call warranted or not. I don't think anyone is arguing that there are clean block situations that can be fouls (using off hand to climb for the block, low body contact, etc). We are saying you have to see and judge the whole play.