Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[RandyBrown]

Snaq: Your're alright. I wouldn't read it, either--not without a brandy, my easy-chair, and a fire, at least. Thanks for the time, again.

No, not "just" the rules. I'm saying, not absent them. Quoting/citing focuses thread participants on the exact language. It lets everyone know where everyone else is starting from. It gets us all talking about the sames thing: the rule(s), as written, as opposed to our own individual summaries of the rule(s) tangled with our individual interpetations of same. The latter makes it difficult to know if the speaker is basing a contention on the same rule(s) the reader may have in mind or on a different rule(s), or whether the contention is based solely on interpretation. Even if we all had every rule memorized, verbatim, we still wouldn't necessarily know which of them the speaker was using for support.

For example, you reference the dead-ball contact rule. I assume you are referring to 4-19-1's subnote, but I don't know that. I don't know the rules well enough to know that there isn't another rule mentioning dead-ball contact, or that I haven't since forgotten it if I once knew it. If this forum is only for those who have mastered the rules, then I'm not sure what you all have left to talk about. If it is also for those who have not mastered the rules, and doubt they ever will, then quotes/cites make the threads, and learning, more efficient.

As far as my specific use of "incidental" in the context of 4-19-1's subnote, you haven't moved me. I understand you haven't previously made the connection between the two, but that's not an argument. You don't argue that the subnote's contact does not conform to the stated definition of "incidental", nor do you provide a specific example of the subnote's contact that does not meet incidental's definition. I don't agree that just because the word "incidental" is not used in the subnote, the contact described doesn't fall under the larger definition of incidental. To flip it on you, they could have included the word, couldn't they have, without any change in substance, i.e., couldn't they have said, "This contact should be ruled incidental unless intentional or flagrant" and accomplished the same result? I don't see any difference. The definition of "incidental" does not limit itself to live-ball contact, that I noticed. To convince me, I think you would have to give me an example of the subnote's contact that did not meet incidental's definition. [Reminder: I'm not saying I'm not incorrectly using the term, only that I don't think you have shown me as much.]

Regarding intent of the rules, I think you miss. I agree with all that you say, factually. The Federation uses those facts to arrive at a very different prescription, however. They say you only see all that contact, because that is the monster you, yourselves, have created. Now, parents, coaches, ADs, and state associations are *****ing (actually, for at least the last five years in my state, I've been told). Your regional-difference remark is a symptom of what the Federation is telling us to right. Rules application should be uniform throughout. There should be no regional difference. They are saying there shouldn't be all that contact you speak of on the court, that officials are encouraging it, by not calling it, which then leads us to rough play. I know of no one, save a few AAU teams, perhaps, who appreciate the way we call the game these days. I don't know how old you are, but that contact you speak of didn't exist thirty years ago when I played, because officials didn't allow it. We've had this slow creep over the years. The Federation is pointing out that inconsequential contact (such as exists in your two play-situation examples) is different than incidental contact by their definition. Whether contact is incidental doesn't turn of whether there is advantage/disadvantage, even if officials were capable of discerning it--talk about arrogance, eh? For example, how do we know the coach wouldn't prefer the foul to an easy bucket? Maybe his strategy involves getting into the bonus as quickly as possible. We can't know. Incidental must be thought of in context with 10-6. Apply 10-6-2 to your two play situations, for instance, and try to argue incidental: "contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul". The Federation is telling us that we have "gone off the reservation", that determining whether contact is incidental does not mean applying a advantage/disadvantage filter to 10-6. Think of the mayhem that could eventually lead to (some say we're already there). Literally, "incidental" is defined as that which occurs by chance or without intention, which is exactly how I would answer your two play-situations. If it wasn't by chance or without intention, 10-6, otherwise, we end up where we are, POE #1.

It's that slippery slope thing. You know the Federation's argument. I won't restate it any more than I already have. What I, personally, think the whole contact thing boils down to is a decision on the part of parents, ADs, and state associations as to whether they want to follow NFHS rules, or not. They don't have to. In the meantime, as certified officials wearing patches, I think we have to stick with exactly what is prescribed, rather than to relatively recent convention.

Agree with you on the 99% thing--I was speaking in the general sense of "intentional" at the time, which indirectly fed into what I just said above about incidental, I think--can't recall, now.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Snaq: Your're alright. I wouldn't read it, either--not without a brandy, my easy-chair, and a fire, at least.

No, I would need Aderrall . Nothing more, nothing less.

[Adam]

Your argument about the coach's strategy of getting into the bonus isn't valid. The advantage to look for is in the contact itself, not the punishment. You call the foul to punish the illegal advantage. I don't give a crap if he'd rather have the foul than the layup. It doesn't matter, because if his player has a wide open layup, then they weren't prevented from doing normal offensive movements. Therefore, by rule, no foul.

[Raymond]

Now I see my intuition was correct in ignoring this thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Now I see my intuition was correct in ignoring this thread.

You are still wise beyond your years.

Randy has now used more words in 7 posts than you have in 4350. Just saying....

[RandyBrown]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Your argument about the coach's strategy of getting into the bonus isn't valid. The advantage to look for is in the contact itself, not the punishment. You call the foul to punish the illegal advantage. I don't give a crap if he'd rather have the foul than the layup. It doesn't matter, because if his player has a wide open layup, then they weren't prevented from doing normal offensive movements. Therefore, by rule, no foul.

I don't believe even you believe what you are arguing. The test would be, are you going to ignore that slap on the dribbler's arm no matter how hard and loud it is, as long as it doesn't stop an easy layup? Your argument says you are. Are coaches, players, fans going to be fine with that on every layup--it only being called when the layup is missed? What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved." I'm curious: What do you think they are talking about in POE #1?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

I don't believe even you believe what you are arguing. The test would be, are you going to ignore that slap on the dribbler's arm no matter how hard and loud it is, as long as it doesn't stop an easy layup? Your argument says you are. Are coaches, players, fans going to be fine with that on every layup--it only being called when the layup is missed? What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

Wow, you've just displayed an incredible lack of understanding.

Are you going to judge whether to call a foul based on how loud th slap is?

Let me answer a couple of your questions.

First, yes I am. I frankly don't give a crap what the coach, players, or fans think either. If he asks nicely, I'll explain to him that while there was contact, his player played through it and got a layup that I really wouldn't want to take away from him. So tell me, what normal defensive or offensive movements were prevented by a slap on the arm in this play?

And for the record, I don't care if he misses the layup on that play either. I'm not calling it either way; it's on the player for missing an easy layup that in itself was not affected at all by contact earlier in his drive.

And coaches that understand the rules also understand why you let that call go; in fact they get a bit irate when you call those fouls and take away easy shots.

My book's at home, so I'll have to comment on what I expect to be a complete mis-reading of the rule when I'm actually able to read it tonight.

[Welpe]

Oh look, Snaqs and MTD, Sr. are arguing....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Oh look, Snaqs and MTD, Sr. are arguing....

Nah, MTD is only this wrong when it comes to The University of Ohio at Columbus.

[Welpe]

Oh you mean that's not MTD? I just assumed based upon the words/post ratio.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

What makes you think you are qualified to judge advantage and disadvantage, anyway--assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)?

My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

Sigh......

Advantage/disadvantage has been specifically spelled out in every rule book for ...oh...about the last 50 years at least. It's there. You just don't know where to look for it. And I ain't telling you.

And someday you also might learn that we really don't care what coaches think. I also hate to break it to you, but advantage/disadvantage is what separates illegal contact from incidental contact in most situations.

Every time you open your mouth, you show us exactly what little you do know about officiating. On the bright side though, you are using fewer words to illustrate your ignorance.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

On the bright side though, you are using fewer words to illustrate your ignorance.

For professional reasons, I wonder how many words it takes to illustrate ignorance. That's an excellent puzzle.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

Assuming it were mentioned in the book anywhere (they modify rules every year, and never include advantage/disadvantage)? My point with the coach was he wants fouls called. He doesn't want us determining whether particular fouls should be called based on whether we think advantage/disadvantage was involved.

The following is in the NFHS Rulebook on page 7:

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a
balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the
defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly
limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be
permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be
permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not
intended by a rule.

The following is not in the NFHS Rulebook, but is regarded by most experienced officials as being just as important as anything in the rulebook:

THE TOWER PHILOSOPHY

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RandyBrown

10-6-2 would not exist if incidental meant what you say it does. In fact, every contact rule would be modified to include what you say incidental means--"applies only when advantage/disadvantage is involved." I'm curious: What do you think they are talking about in POE #1?

Okay, I promised to address this, so here goes.

Incidental doesn't mean what I say it does, it means what 4-27 says it does. In particular, with regard to this discussion, I'm thinking of 4-27-3.

Originally Posted by Rule 4-27-3

Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

Now, 10-6-2:

Originally Posted by Rule 10-6-2

A player shall not contact an opponent with his/her hand....

This, along with every other article in 10-6 has to be read in light of 4-27-3. Failing to do so is going to lead you to call about three times as many fouls as you should

As for the POE of which you seem to think I'm in violation. Note it specifically talks about enforcing the rules "as written." You can't ignore 4-27-3 and hope to enforce 10-6-2 "as written."

Back to our hypthetical, what movements is A1 hindered from if he's driving by his defender, even if he gets slapped on the arm on his way by?

[RandyBrown]

Snaq: I agree that it all has to be considered together. It has sounded to me like you weigh Article 3 more heavily than the Federation intends, as expressed in POE #1. Maybe I do, as well, who knows. I have no doubt that you are significantly better than I at judging hinderance. I suspect that it may be easier to judge at the level of play you officate, as well. What bugs me, personally, is when I judge something incidental that I subsequently decide wasn't incidental. That means I passed on a foul, because of my own poor judgment. At this point, the only way I know to minimize that is to tighten up on calls similar to your example until I don't notice it happening. I try to judge for the level of play, right down to the individual match-up. That's about as good an answer as I can give you.

More generally, I buy in to POE #1. They believe we are judging too much contact as incidental. I watch varsity officials doing 3A and 4A games in my area, and I understand what the Federation is talking about. Our board has received complaints from ADs (coaches and parents) about rough play. The Federation talks about "as written," but then leaves the language of Article 3 intact. You could argue they contradict themselves. The thrust of their argument is clear, however. They believe the current level of contact judged incidental is too high. They argue that we encourage illegal contact in so doing, which leads to an excessive level of rough play. You have seemed to me to show no sensitivity to their concerns, but that may be because you are just that good, and their concerns really do not apply to you. How do you answer their concerns, for yourself? Do they apply to you, or not? Do you have any doubts?