I don't understand why some officials that call a foul with three minutes left in the game will not call the same foul a foul with second(s) left in the game. (i.e. Rich Fronheiser's comments in the Heinz 57 forum/post.) I've heard the comment that I (the official) don't want to determine the outcome of the game. If you don't whistle a foul when it is there with seconds left, then you are determining the outcome of the game--by penalizing one team and rewarding the other team...is that not helping determine the outcome of the game. Just because you pass on a call does not "relieve you from determining the outcome of the game". Would like to hear reply from official(s) who disagrees with this and why passing on a obvious foul with a second or so left releived you from any responsibility.

I completely agree with your comments. Something which constitutes a foul in the 1st quarter also constitutes a foul with 10 seconds left in the game. See a foul, call a foul. One word of caution: don't nitpick on very minor offenses UNLESS you have been calling them all game.

A foul is contact that puts a player at a disadvantage not intended by the rules.

A player turning with the ball 70 feet away from the basket and heaving up a ball that will likely not reach the free throw line will not draw a foul in the first minute or the last. It is not the referee's job to bail out a player or team.

We simply don't talk about this play in the first minute because nobody attempts a 70 foot "shot" in the first minute.

I'm sorry if this is offensive to some, but effective game management dictates how a game is called. At the end of the game I will not hesitate to call a foul (I've called fouls where the lane was cleared with the FT deciding the outcome), but I will make sure it is a GOOD foul. Just as I would in the beginning of the game.

A team gets a rebound with .9 seconds left turns and heaves. There's contact. Calling a foul bails the team out IMO. I think you could get away with such a call at lower levels, but make this call at the varsity level? I couldn't imagine it.

Rich

I've got to agree and have experience with a partner making such a call in a girls Varsity game I worked several years ago.

Schools were friendly rivals because they used to play as a co-op team. Team A down by 1 by about 00:08.00 left on the clock. Girl dribbles to half court and heaves up a prayer with about :01 left, buzzer sounds, and I hear a whistle from T at same time as buzzer. We try to quickly talk him out of the foul but he insists. Player makes 2 of 3 with the lane cleared to win the game. Our ratings for that game were the worst for that year.

Maybe he believed that going to OT was a sign of poor officiating :D

Regardless of the probability of the shot being made, IMHO you have to call the foul here or else you are penalizing the team that was attempting the miracle shot. It MIGHT have gone in...probably not.

Lets face it, if they are fouled on a shot from half court or beyond, then the real problem is with the defense making such a stupid mistake. In this situation the coach should've pounded it into the player's heads to keep hands off. If they didn't do that why should we penalize the shooting team?

As for poor ratings after a game like that, I believe the coach deserves the poor ratings for allowing that foul to occur in the first place.

My two cents worth!

There are definitely two schools of thought here, and it's unlikely that members of one will convince members of the other to change sides.

Yes, the defender made a mistake. Yes, one can look at it that way. I just don't think calling a foul in that situation fits with the spirit and intent of the rules.

The coach of the team that benefits will think he got a gift and the other coach will feel he got screwed. It just isn't a good foul IMO, but I will recognize that others feel differently. Keep in mind that the people that feel differently are likely to not be the participants or the coaches :)

Rich

There are a lot of variables
 

My philosophy in this area is similiar to Firedoc's, consistency is the key.

There is a lot of judgement in the 70' "shot". Was the player focused on a teammate, or at the basket. Was the defender playing the ball or more aggressive, warranting an intentional foul (as dumb as the play would be)? The level of play would also influence my judgement.

I agree with Rich that it is easy to "pontificate" the "a foul is a foul" theology here on the internet, but what happens on the court may be different.

I do not get wrapped up in the concept that a call in the last seconds of the game "decides" the game anymore than the first whistle that an official blows. To me, conveying that much importance to "final" whistle tends fuel the myth that officials win and lose games.

Comments encouraged...

Re: There are a lot of variables
 

I agree Willie. In reality there are dozens of moments during a game that an action by a team decides the final outcome. To point to one call and say that decided the game is ludicrous. Missing 10 free throws decides a game. Careless passes that are intercepted and converted into fast break points decide games. A decision by a ref does not in and of itself decide the outcome of a game...EVER! But boy is it hard to not feel that way when you are the one blowing the whistle at the end.

A tough sitch here IMO. From the original post it really sounds like the player was mugged. IMO if the contact was obvious and the now defensive player was making a legit attempt for the ball, we have to have a foul. If the player truely had controle of the ball and was tackled, would we have the fortitude to call and intentional or flagrant foul??? If the D player simply "crushed" the player in control of the ball it has to be whistled. However one could make a pretty good case that they were just very agressively going after the rebound. Now we have to determine whetjer the player was heaving the ball at the basket or just wildly flinging it away in a desparation pass. IMO you would have to be 110% or more sure that that player was making a shot atempt to award 3 throws.

You did the right thing IMO and huddled w/ partner to see what both saw. Obviously neither of you were SURE this was a shot attempt and went w/ the common foul.

I think some of us are being a little hard on Rich about burying the whistle. I think the jist of his point is that contact (that doesn't draw blood) that does not determine the outcome of the game can be ignored near the horn. OBviously if a team is in position to win/tie a game our fortitude must increase and we must make the call no matter how "displeasing" to some it may be.

This is where we get payed the big bucks, to decide intent and spirit of the rules as they apply, especially when the game is on the line. IMO a good 15 sec conference w/ your partner to discuss some of this at the inevitable TO w/ under a minute to play is a good time to do this. Then you are both on the same page for sitchs that may occur.

Others also had a good point about the defense "not being smart" by fouling here. Were they simply going after the rebound or was it a legitamite "stupid" foul. We need to have the fortitude to penalize accordingly.

Sorry to ramble here but the last minute of a close game is what separates the good officials from the average ones. We have allowed the kids to play 31 minutes of basketball working to decide the outcome. This includes Turnovers and missing freethrows etc. We tend to use that reason as to why a good team lost a game. However we also need to apply that to why the other team has kept themself in position to win a game. We cannot use the former thinking to bail a team out or to think a team does not deserve to win. We need to be strong and allow them to decide that last minute as well, no matter what the implications may be. Sitchs like this are what should really make you truely love officiating (gosh that sounded really sentimental) :D

[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Feb 5th, 2003 at 10:29 AM]

I don't understand how anyone can go into a game with a philosophy that dictates what will be called when. Each situation is judged on it's own. A rule of thumb is one thing, but to say "never call a foul" is not good.

I also don't see what coaches ratings have to do with anything. You are not doing your job if you don't get poor coaches ratings every now & then. If you worry about them going in...???

??!! Really this becomes a question of degree. But if a player is making a buzzer heave, and a defender makes contact that affects the heave I think this is something that has to be called -- otherwise, the "smart" move becomes to hack the heaver. Yes, the heave is a low probabiblity deal, but it is not legal to take away that slim chance. [But I also agree not many are going to change their minds; I suspect the real difference is not whether refs would ever call this type of foul, but the seriousness of the foul before they would decide to call it -- everyone is going to call the tackle, no one is going to call the ticky-tack, but there is a lot of room in between those that refs are going to disagree. And I'll bet a lot would call it differently at the end of Q1-Q3 than at the end of Q4 with the game on the line.]

Lot of judgement
 

To take a player attempting a 3-pointer from so far away from the basket that the odds of making the shot are 1 in a 100 (or less) and put them on the free throw line where their odds are 50-90 percent is not being fair to anyone. If you make a call like that you have just provided a very distinct and very large advantage to one team.

A foul is a foul and I don't think we will find anyone on this forum that disagrees. However the original scenario we were disucssing, I interpretted as two players fighting for a rebound and one coach screaming that he wanted three shots because his player was attempting to throw the ball the length of the court with 0.9 seconds left... or something like that. The immediacy of the situation is not my fault as an official. The immediacy is a problem for the team behind (they placed themselves there) and it is not my responsibility/position to help a team overcome that immediacy.

A foul call and a subsequent set of freethrows is an attempt to compensate for illegal actions, a foul. The compensation (freethrows) should be relatively commensurate with the loss. A possibly illegal act that removes a player's opportunity to make a 1 in a 100 shot should not be compensated with three opportunities to make freethrows.

This is the engineer in me coming out.... a 1 in a 100 shot => 1% opportunity to make 3 points. 3 free throws, assuming 75% success = 0.75 * 0.75 * 0.75 => 42% opportunity to make 3 points. I don't actually make calculations like this during a game BUT THESE TWO ARE NOT EQUAL by a very large, disparate amount. If you make that call, you are determining the game because you just provided a 40% great opportunity for that team to catch up. If you don't make the call you may have allowed the defense to illegally influence the 1% opportunity. For this particular situation I think it is better to allow the possible 1% influence than it is to assuredly CREATE the 40% opportunity.

The fat lady may not be singing but she is warming up long before the last second. ;)

Re: Lot of judgement
 

Unbelievable. My jaw is on the floor. Your quote "If you make that call, you are determining the game because you just provided a 40% great opportunity for that team to catch up." is the one that burns me up. It's not about you, it's about the participants. The participant committed the foul. The fouling player is the one who handed the 40% greater opportunity to the team that was fouled, not the official.

The math thing is ridiculous. Say I have a player shooting 85% on FTs but only 15% on threes. Anytime she gets fouled on a three-point attempt, you should ignore it based on your logic.

Re: Lot of judgement
 

Sorry, Tony....while I agree with your math and theory, it is NOT the official that is providing the disparity to one team or another. We, as officials, do not make up things, we react to the players actions on the court. The defensive player, by fouling a "shooter" 50 feet from the basket is the person responsible for turning that 1% chance into a 40% chance.

Re: Re: Lot of judgement
 

I agree w/ andy here. We just have to be 100% sure that this was a shot attempt. That is where the dificulty comes in. especially since the chances of the shot actually going in are low.

AMEN...we don't decide the games...the actions of the players decides the games! This is a "not so smart" action that may or may not decide this particular game. If we go back to the original post, the player was awarded the 1 and 1 and they missed the front end. With that being the case I'm willing to bet they wouldn't have made 2 of the 3 anyway...thus the players still are deciding the game...not us. We didn't award the player/team 3 points...we correctly awarded them the opportunity to make those points themselves. They still have to shoot them and in a pressure situation an 85% free throw shooter probably just became a 65% shooter. Gotta call the foul!

Re: Re: Lot of judgement
 

Based on his logic we should ignore ALL shooting fouls since typically players have a higher FT % than FG %. In fact, we should also ignore any non-shooting fouls when we are in the bonus because we are converting a 0% opportunity to score into a real opportunity to score.

(There's more than 1 engineer here. :) )

To clarify, it was one of those slight contact things that didn't really put the shooter at a disadvantage but would have impeded her progress for a rebound if there had been time left and she had been closer to the basket. To restate, the ball was away, then there was slight contact that MIGHT have been a foul. I won't argue that you should NEVER call a foul in that situation. I guess I would say, "only call the foul if it is obvious."

[Edited by mikesears on Feb 5th, 2003 at 11:39 AM]

When did this become a math forum? First we have the "multiple foul postulate" stating that it's basically impossible to have a multiple foul because of numbers and physics and the human brain, and now we have "free throw probability theorems" about the chances a coin will come up on its edge.

Man, I went to college, I thought I was done with calculus!!

FWIW, it's hard to comment on a game-ending foul or no foul situation, if you're not there to actually see it. A good official will go with his/her best judgement.

Maybe I misinterpreted the scenario. Maybe I shouldn't have brought math into this. But you guys are all neglecting the judgement of the official. If the "shooter" gets creamed in the back court, call the foul. If two players are scrambling for the ball and there is some minor contact don't decide that this is a 3-point attempt and don't call a shooting foul.

I interpreted the description to be the latter case - minor contact, long distance from the goal, short amount of time on the clock. Unless it is obvious there was a shot attempt and that the defense definitely committed a foul on the shooter I am not going to put the shooter 50 feet closer to the basket and let him have a BETTER opportunity to get back in the game.

Some ticky tack calls can be made during the beginning and middle of the game as instructional - this is how we are going to call the game and I won't allow you to do that => foul. At the end of the game you are no longer instructing or establishing boundaries; you are now enforcing what boundaries you have already established. In this scenario, you've got a brand new activity that you haven't seen during the game - a last second hail mary from 70 feet. To late for instruction. People, I'm not going to call a ticky tack foul here. You can if you like BUT I'M NOT GOING TO. All facets of the supposed "shooter's" intent and the foul have got to be obvious in this situation or I'm not going to call a foul. I personally feel that influence the outcome of the game.

I think if you look back at the orginal post you will find that the officials got together and discussed these things. They decided the player was not shooting but that he was fouled - he got a 1 and 1.

We are arguing semantics about the judgement of a play that the vast majority of us did not see. I interpreted it differently than you did.

The original question of this post was why do officials not make the same calls in the last seconds of the game. To me, the answer is simple, IT IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION and they are not the same calls because the situation is different. Additionally, and probably more fundamental, is that the perspective of the team/players who are behind has changed to one of desparation - I've got to work harder, jump higher, play tighter, press my advantage with more vigor, were running out of time; I've got to do this NOW. It is a different ball game. As an official I need to make adjustments to this strikingly different tempo and physicalness. As a player or a fan you may be expecting the same instructional or boundary type calls that were made 20 minutes earlier. It is often not the same game anymore and the different style of play demands different calls to be made and different allowances to be given.

Folks this is just my humble opinion. You can all jump on me now if you feel so inclined... or drop your jaws or whatever.... call a foul... call some lane vioaltions when he misses... keep it close.

Perhaps I'm overreacting. I had a horrible partner last night that I believe would have called the shooting foul and would have called the necessary lane violations to keep his district's team in the contest.

He made many, very questionable calls, that created probably 15 points for the team from his district. I was flabergasted and stunned.

Tony,

If you seriously question the integrity of this official then you have an obligation to report that to your association or the state high school league. Its hard enough being viewed as impartial as it is, but impossible when you have someone who does have a vested interest in the outcome of the game.

Re: There are a lot of variables
 

And Mr. Denucci thought there was a lack of controversy....

Amen to Willie and Rich...

What baffles me here is how the message is being lost. What Rich says does not mean it's open season in the closing seconds of a close game, or that legitimate fouls should not be called. But good game management dictates that there will occasionally be situational officiating.

It is my firm belief that players/coaches on both sides would rather the officials err on the side of NOT blowing the whistle in these situations.

By the way, how many points does willie get for using "pontificate"?

The scoring on pontificate depends on whether there is a double- or triple-word score in effect.

The canuck said it perfectly.

It is not blasphemous to consider the situation at the end of a close game.

I want to know the situation. And a foul is definitely not a foul, regardless of what everyone says here.

Here's a situation: A leads by four with a minute left and has the ball. They inbound and B clearly wants a foul.

Is your standard for calling that foul the same as in the opening minute of the game? If it is, you're setting yourself up for disaster. You call the first foul you can and quickly line up to shoot the free throws, or the defense will make sure you call a foul by knocking the ball-handler's head off.

Court awareness and situation handling at the end of a game, in my opinion, is one of the most important things a good official learns.

I never said I wouldn't call a foul in the original situation. I just said it wouldn't be a likely occurrence. With .9 second on the clock and the clock starting on the first touch, it would be very unlikely to have a shooting foul.

Rich

The hard calls
 

After reading all the posts, I want to reply, but all the responses are taken. Most of us would call a foul if the player was mugged, most of us would pass if the contact was deemed incidental. You don't want to bail out a team on a desperation play nor do you want to legitimize "making sure" the shot misses. So, bottom line is, you gotta see the play. I would hope that all of us has the cajones to call our own game and not be influenced by other circumstances.

My question to those who are asking why do officials call things different in the beginning of the game than at the end in this situation would be: Was there a 70' hail mary shot in the first, second or third quarter? If the answer is no then how can you now say that they are calling the game differently?

There's more than 1 engineer here. [/B][/QUOTE]I always wanted to be an engineer,too.Lemme see-so far we got:
http://www.thomasthetankengine.com/m...s_castchrs.gif
Dan
Downtown Tony Brown
Mark T. DeNucci Sr.

Any other engineers here?

I always wanted to be an engineer,too.Lemme see-so far we got:
http://www.thomasthetankengine.com/m...s_castchrs.gif
Dan
Downtown Tony Brown
Mark T. DeNucci Sr.

Any other engineers here? [/B][/QUOTE]

I are a en-gineer and I are proud uv it! :)

http://members.aol.com/lafimprov/cletus.jpg

BTW, I see from the length of their posts that both Downtown & MTD suffer from engineer's disease.

I'm not an engineer. . .
 

but I'll add my thoughts anyway.

As a coach, we don't really expect to get a foul call on a half court shot attempt, unless the contact is pretty hard. The criteria for calling a foul on the 8 foot jump shot and the 70 foot shot are not the same, nor do I believe they should be. I think you should know if you have to make a call and make it.

And I am saying this regardless of who has the ball, my team or theirs.

Rather than getting in to the details of this thread, I'll just make one comment. I grew up playing hockey where it is widely accepted that the ref puts away the whistle in the third period. I never liked that idea and I believe that basketball is better off because the refs will make calls late in the game.

I know I would feel d#mn silly if I called "icing" in the 4th quarter of the basketball game. That would be one reason I would "hold my whistle." :D

Taking it one step farther
 

In an 8th grade boys game early this year, the following happened: Tie game Team A inbounds the ball in the backcourt with 4.5 seconds left. B puts on a little pressure, does a good job of it and just about runs it out.
A heaves a long pass downcourt where A1 steps out to meet it about the 3 point line. A1 catches the ball just as he is plastered by B1. I whistle the foul. The clock stops on 00:00 and we hear just a hint of the buzzer. A1 steps to the line with the lane cleared, hits the first shot, game is over. B coach throws a minor screaming fit, at his player, not at me. "What were you doing even close to him???!!!" A1 had absolutely 0% chance to catch and then get off a shot. According to the logic expressed here, do I pass on this call? This was certainly a definitive case of the defender bailing the offense out. Do we judge what is a silly play and penalize the offense by ignoring it.
What if the player had lost the clock and made this 70 heave with 6 seconds left. The foul deflects the ball but the heavers teammate scoops it up and lays it in. Now who got penalized? You see a foul, you call a foul, the timer keeps the time.

I are a en-gineer and I are proud uv it! :)

http://members.aol.com/lafimprov/cletus.jpg

BTW, I see from the length of their posts that both Downtown & MTD suffer from engineer's disease. [/B][/QUOTE]I am also an engineer, but they never let me drive the train!