Partially agree. However, if the contact makes it distinctly more difficult to play, even if the ball handler is able to power through, it should still be a foul. That is where the game gets too rough.

For a while, there was a movement around these parts that basically frowned upon And-1's. The argument was that if it went in, it must have not been a disadvantage. I never liked that argument. To call a game that way leads to substantial contact not getting called if the shooter is lucky and it goes in anyway which only causes the players to get frustrated and to escalate in response. Luckily, that pendulum has come back to the center....not every contact is an and-1 (and it shouldn't be) but it isn't a bad thing to call a foul either when the player clearly and obviously gets hit.

The fact that a player, with exceptional effort, is able to play through isn't really a good reason to not call a foul. The reason to not call the foul was that the contact really wasn't that much and had no effect (include extra exertion by the opponent).

I agree, Camron, which is why I qualified it with the word "likely," although even that may be too strong.

+1

I miss them all of the time, I see it and think "Did I see the whole thing or just the awkward entanglement of two players?" By then, its too late.

A lot for me depends on well one team is running an offense. I catch illegal screens more when the team has good spacing and looks like they are trying to run some sort of offense. When they come from out of the blue, I miss them.

Really?

I think Camron's point is that disadvantage is a judgement call. Iow, there is no quantitative measure available to us.

And he extends his point saying that in KY, the higher-ups want the officials to tighten their judgement as to what disadvantage is.

But I could be wrong.

This is my thought as well. A directive that says call the game tight still leads to each official deciding what "tight" is. Do you call every little whack on the arm anytime there is contact with the ball handler?

I think staying with the POEs put out by the NF this year particularly with regard to excessive contact and intentional fouls should be sufficient in the tightening of the game.

Having every trip down the floor whistled for a foul or violation is not making for a better game.

There's a balance out there somewhere and the association needs to put out exactly what it considers officials are missing or being too lenient on

As a general statement, if you asked (HS) coaches, "Do you think overall that there are too many fouls, too few fouls or just the right number of fouls called in your games?", you'd get a strong plurality (if not a majority) that too few fouls are called.

(I think the same would be true if you added "on your team" to the end of the question, as long as the coaches thought that the officials would tighten down on both teams.)

In some of our smaller conferences, the coaches clearly think we should call every last bit of contact and suck the life out of the game.

Most girls coaches, even in our bigger school conferences also feel that way.

I/we am/are simply not going to officiate to those coaches' expectations. I wasn't hired to officiate a free throw shooting contest.

Officials are human and I work hard to get the balance right, but I see examples of games where it's called too tightly (the JV game I watched last night had over 60 fouls and caused us to start 30 minutes late -- I counted at least 10 fouls in the second and third quarter that were not fouls, in my judgment) and too loosely. Until there's ample video where someone says, "This is a foul. Call this," nobody learns from an article like this.

yep...that is what i meant.

+1.

Good discussion last night in our association on this very topic. We had 3 coaches come talk to us. It was interesting hearing their perspective.

As someone who played 30 years ago, coached for quite a while and is relatively new to officiating, I believe the game is much more physical (contact is called a foul less frequently) on four types of plays: 1. Post up moves (the Shaq effect), 2. rebounding play, 3. perimeter defense. 4. Illegal screens

I do think we protect the shooter more.

The head of high school basketball for the state of Kansas told us last year: "There is no thing as a game interrupter call. If it's a foul (and she provided lots of examples) call it. The players will adjust."