Kentucky officials instructed to "tighten up" the game

[jritchie]

This is the e'mail we received after the article came out yesterday from our assignor.
" I hope you read the Sunday Lexington herald article about physical play in our great game of high school basketball. We need to call fouls when they occur and there is no such rule as let them play thru it. Apply the rules that we have. A game called consistent does not mean you have called a good game if you allow both teams to play thru everything and it becomes a game who is the strongest, this is not the way the game should be played or officiated." Guess some games may have been getting out of hand!

[Rich]

There's no such thing as "let them play through it?" Really?

Not all contact is a foul. I get that the sport has become overly physical in some areas, but the coach that cautioned about the parade to the free throw line is right to a degree, too.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Rich

There's no such thing as "let them play through it?" Really?

Not all contact is a foul. I get that the sport has become overly physical in some areas, but the coach that cautioned about the parade to the free throw line is right to a degree, too.

The point is that there is no rule to "let them play through a foul." Let the incidental stuff go.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

The point is that there is no rule to "let them play through a foul." Let the incidental stuff go.

How do you tell the difference?

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Adam

How do you tell the difference?

Simply: contact that occurs that does not constitute a foul. 4-27

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Simply: contact that occurs that does not constitute a foul. 4-27

Contact that doesn't cause a disadvantage (or is, in my judgment excessive contact) isn't a foul.

You can't officiate advantage/disadvantage with a rule book citation.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Rich

Contact that doesn't cause a disadvantage (or is, in my judgment excessive contact) isn't a foul.

You can't officiate advantage/disadvantage with a rule book citation.

Now you don't want me to use a rule citation? Can't win on here.
P.S. if i didn't use a rule situation I would have said contact that doesn't cause a disadvantage should be considered incidental.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Contact that doesn't cause a disadvantage (or is, in my judgment excessive contact) isn't a foul.

You can't officiate advantage/disadvantage with a rule book citation.

Exactly what is a disadvantage?

What they're probably saying is too many officials are passing on too many fouls because they're not recognizing the disadvantage that is caused.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Simply: contact that occurs that does not constitute a foul. 4-27

Ok, so what's a foul? Otherwise we're bordering on circular reasoning.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Adam

Ok, so what's a foul? Otherwise we're bordering on circular reasoning.

Contact that affects rhythm, balance, speed or quickness of a ball handler. Contact that causes disadvantage. An example would be reaching. It is not a foul in and of itself. If contact occurs that affects RSBQ or causes the ball handler to lose control of the ball. This is a foul. If there is contact but the ball handler gets around and has no disadvantage, I will probably let it go.

Is that what you wanted me to answer? Give an example?