Kentucky officials instructed to "tighten up" the game

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Exactly what is a disadvantage?

Really?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Rich

Really?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[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?

[JRutledge]

I really hate the terms "Calling the game tight" anyway because it suggests something that is not very clear. If they want things to be called then they need to do more training to suggest what is seen as a foul by the higher ups. Then they need to have the courage to support those officials and not support those officials that choose to not do what is suggested.

I just think HS organizations need to do more video training and show things that should be called or not called. Almost every game is on some video and there should be multiple plays used to help make it clear what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Peace

[Moosie74]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I really hate the terms "Calling the game tight" anyway because it suggests something that is not very clear. If they want things to be called then they need to do more training to suggest what is seen as a foul by the higher ups. Then they need to have the courage to support those officials and not support those officials that choose to not do what is suggested.

I just think HS organizations need to do more video training and show things that should be called or not called. Almost every game is on some video and there should be multiple plays used to help make it clear what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Peace

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

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I really hate the terms "Calling the game tight" anyway because it suggests something that is not very clear. If they want things to be called then they need to do more training to suggest what is seen as a foul by the higher ups. Then they need to have the courage to support those officials and not support those officials that choose to not do what is suggested.

I just think HS organizations need to do more video training and show things that should be called or not called. Almost every game is on some video and there should be multiple plays used to help make it clear what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Peace

+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."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

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?

I agree with this, the point was there is a rule that indicates if a player is able to play through contact, it's likely not a foul.

[Scuba_ref]

But there is no rule that backs up the statement "Coach, as long as I'm doing this game, you won't be in the bonus."

This is the type of crap you typically hear from guys that say, we don't get paid by the hour, or similar statements. We have a job to do and a ruleset to guide us!