Kentucky officials instructed to "tighten up" the game

[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

[bob jenkins]

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.)

[Rich]

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.

[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!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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).

[Adam]

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