Kentucky officials instructed to "tighten up" the game
 

I don't fully agree that the college and NBA games are causing the high school game to be more physical. The D1 games I watch are called much tighter than high school games. More illegal screens, hand checks, etc. are called at that level. I can go weeks in high school games and not have a singler partner call an illegal screen. I'm good for at least one a game if not more.

I have my thoughts about why high-level high school games are so physical, but I'll wait to see what others have to say.

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! :)

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.

How do you tell the difference?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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!

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."