Ok...you want to get a discussion going?

I've read some posts here that say, "A foul in the first quarter, is a foul in the fourth quarter!"

If you are a "newbie", probably a good idea to go with that philosophy.
If you have a pretty good idea about the game of basketball and how to manage it...a foul at the start of the game might not necessarily be a foul at the end of the game.

An example:
Player A1 goes up for a shot, in the first minute of the game, and you have B1 with a pretty good slap on the wrist...ball goes in, TWEET! Bucket good 1 shot.
Now it is at the end of the game...one minute left, 30 pt blowout...A1 with the lead, goes up for a shot, B1 with a pretty good slap on the wrist...ball goes in...Have the courage to LET IT GO!

Now where in the world would I get that sort of philosophy?

Stu Gorsky's camp in Bellingham, WA...Dave Libby, NCAA Final Four Official...call it how you want, but this guy didn't get where he's at by being silly.

Dude

I think all the refs on this board would agree with this principle.

BUT....

Instead of a 30 pt game with 1:00 to go, make it a tie game with :05 to go, Team A has a chance to win.

Instead of a "pretty good slap" make it a "moderate slap", enough to disrupt the shot, but not really hard contact.

Instead of a normal game make it a heated BV playoff game between two rivals, in Team A's chaotic gym, with its positively carcinogenic fans, two howling coaches, and players bangin' o plenty under the glass.

NOW let the debate begin.

A good scenario canuckrefguy.
But, it's like a lot of situations brought up here...you'd have to see it. One official might "see" your description different than anothers...thus, calling it different on paper.
That's just it, I believe we call the game with a certain "feel" for it. Does it "feel" like a foul? Have we let them bang all night? Did we call, or no call, something similar at the other end that tied the game?
This is part of what separates the good officials from the really good ones...having a feel for the game.
You want a debate...here's one...maybe I'm biased, because I have played this game, but I think the guy that has played this game of basketball usually makes a better official than the guy that was in the band.
Example: I could know every rule in Hockey with a photogenic mind...and since I have not played that game, the guy that has would be way ahead of me as far as a feel for the game goes. Simple example...but effective IMO.

Dude

They cause cancer? Do they wear warning labels from the Surgeon General? ;)

Chuck,
Didn't you know that EVERYTHING causes cancer these days?:D:D

I think its about consistency within the framework of the particular game you are working. A close game with little time remaining draws a lot more attention to your whistle, or lack of, than a 30 point difference. I always believe that the players decide the outcome, if they chose to do that by committing a foul, then its my job to call and administer that foul.

On a general basis, I agree with your conclusion that ex-players make better officials, but I have seen the exception to this as well.

Nine times out of ten I wouldn't call that foul in the first minute. Ball went in and his speed/balance/momentum weren't affected, then we play on. And I assumed that we all understood that when we said call it the same in the last few mins as you do in the first few, that it is a tight game.

Example: I had two rival teams last Friday, four point game and green is ahead (both are in double bonus). White shoots a 3, misses and W11 pushes G54 to get a perfect rebound. I call the foul with only 11 seconds left to go in the game and Green makes both free throws to clench the win.