foul or no foul

[rocky]

Do we have a bad habit of delaying the call of a foul just to see if the shot goes in or not. As a coach I see alot of officials waiting to call a foul only if the shot does not go in. Most officials tell me they don't want to interrupt the flow of the game. Is this a trend or just poor officiating? It really stands out when the ball hangs on the rim for a second then falls off as a miss- then suddenly a whistle---- My call is poor officiating? what does everyone else think.

[KDM]

I agree --- poor officiating.

[mick]

Originally posted by rocky
Do we have a bad habit of delaying the call of a foul just to see if the shot goes in or not. As a coach I see alot of officials waiting to call a foul only if the shot does not go in. Most officials tell me they don't want to interrupt the flow of the game. Is this a trend or just poor officiating? It really stands out when the ball hangs on the rim for a second then falls off as a miss- then suddenly a whistle---- My call is poor officiating? what does everyone else think.

Coach Rocky
That flow interupter was emphasized at many camps this year and if the delay really stands out, I would guess that the official who "waited" was still working that mechanic into his game.
If the shooter was really hammered and fought to put up the shot it will be called whether the ball is in, or out, but on a "shooter-got-bumped-a-little" call, the official may wait a bit to determine the effect of the touch, in my opinion.
mick

[JRutledge]

Mick is a 100% right on this one. Many officials are taught about "interupters" and do not understand that principle very well. I agree, you should only wait to see if the shot was a struggle to put up. Some players are just stronger then some defenders and contact might not affect them as much, especially if they go up strong. It is not different than waiting to see if that push out front affected the dribbler before he/she makes a great pass for a lay up. The play is dead before you blow the whistle, I think waiting a half a second is not that bad.

Originally posted by mick

Coach Rocky
That flow interupter was emphasized at many camps this year and if the delay really stands out, I would guess that the official who "waited" was still working that mechanic into his game.
If the shooter was really hammered and fought to put up the shot it will be called whether the ball is in, or out, but on a "shooter-got-bumped-a-little" call, the official may wait a bit to determine the effect of the touch, in my opinion.
mick

[Todd VandenAkker]

Holding the whistle for a second is a tough mechanic to learn, and is more likely to be seen with veteran officials than younger. With the latter, you're going to get many more immediate whistles out of "reaction," which leads to lots of "touch" fouls that could easily be passed on. I'd say you're looking at GOOD officiating in most of the held whistle situations, because those are the guys who have a better understanding of advantage-disadvantage. Yes, occasionally it seems quite delayed, and it certainly shouldn't happen when there is a clear foul, regardless of whether the ball goes in or not. But, overall, you're going to have a better game when minor contact not affecting the play is ignored, rather than having "everything" called.

[rockyroad]

Coach, could you explain why you think it is poor officiating? As refs, we are taught to "see the whole play" and to "hold the whistle" until we are sure of what happened...are you saying this is bad officiating because something is not being called, or simply because you don't like the timing on the whistle? I am sort of confused here...

[Gary Brendemuehl]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Coach, could you explain why you think it is poor officiating? As refs, we are taught to "see the whole play" and to "hold the whistle" until we are sure of what happened...are you saying this is bad officiating because something is not being called, or simply because you don't like the timing on the whistle? I am sort of confused here...

I see no problem with holding the whistle until you are sure of what happened. However, basing a foul/no foul decision only on the success of the try is wrong. A personal foul involves illegal contact with an opponent which hinders an oppponent from performing normal offensive movements. Hinder means more than to prevent.

[Todd VandenAkker]

However, basing a foul/no foul decision only on the success of the try is wrong.[/B]

Not necessarily. In many cases of a player driving to the hoop, there is light contact that may or may not affect the shot. If an official were to blow a foul immediately, only to have the player easily put the ball in the basket with no trace of being affected by the light contact, he/she would have penalized contact that put the shooter at no disadvantage whatsoever. However, if the shot misses, it could very likely have been caused by even light contact, such as on the arm--just enough to throw the shot off--and, thus, SHOULD be called. The ball going through or missing may, in this situation, be the best way of determining the significance of such light contact. Remember, severity of contact in and of itself does not determine a foul, but rather the IMPACT of the contact on the play (advantage-disadvantage): severe contact could be a no-call, while very light contact could be a foul. The official, by waiting to see the impact of contact on the shot, is looking to penalize if necessary, but "pass" if possible.

[Gary Brendemuehl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker

However, if the shot misses, it could very likely have been caused by even light contact, such as on the arm--just enough to throw the shot off--and, thus, SHOULD be called. The ball going through or missing may, in this situation, be the best way of determining the significance of such light contact. Remember, severity of contact in and of itself does not determine a foul, but rather the IMPACT of the contact on the play (advantage-disadvantage): severe contact could be a no-call, while very light contact could be a foul.

My primary objection is passing on heavier contact just because the shot is made. If the contact hinders the normal offensive movements, the offensive player is at a disadvantage. Just because a stronger player can adjust to heavier contact and still make the shot, he is still hindered and is entitled to the fouls shots regardless of the outcome of the shot.

[Bart Tyson]

I agree with Todd, this is why the camps teach us to hold the whistle. Advantage/disadvantage. The camps are teaching this because the COACHES want it this way. It does make for a better game. In Reference the type of play we are talking about, There are times when we take heat for not making a call, but that is few and far between. Most players and coaches can live with a no call, but have a problem with a phantom or weak call.

[mick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gary Brendemuehl

[i]Originally posted by Todd VandenAkker

My primary objection is passing on heavier contact just because the shot is made. If the contact hinders the normal offensive movements, the offensive player is at a disadvantage. Just because a stronger player can adjust to heavier contact and still make the shot, he is still hindered and is entitled to the fouls shots regardless of the outcome of the shot.

Gary,
You have hit on a valid argument. I am sure that Shaq would agree that a strong player should not be penalized for being strong. I believe we must be fair to all players equally. Yet we still must adjudge the impact, intent and effect of contact.
mick

[rockyroad]

I think Gary is exactly right when he talks about hindering the normal offensive movement - but severity of that contact shouldn't be the determining factor...a light touch on the inside of the jump-shooter's elbow is all it takes to throw off the shot, but if it does throw it off, call it. Likewise, a two-handed shove in the back might not stop Shaq from getting his dunk, but if you let something that blatant go, then the game will slowly deteriorate to the crapper level...I think the main point of the hold the whistle theory is to develop better judgement... not necessarily make fewer calls - just better ones.

[rocky]

well rockyroad I see your point. The only way I would see this as poor officiating is when the call seems to be inconsistent to the players and all based on whether the shot is successful. Hard for me as a coach to reply to a player after a game when he says "they only called that because it didn't go in" true but... ---so when is a foul a foul?

[PAULK1]

In the original situation you made it sound as if the only criteria for calling the foul was the fact that there was some contact but that the shot didn't go in if this is the case then that is poor officiating. If the contact was not enough to warrant a whistle before it was hanging on the rim what happened to make that contact any different afterwards. Maybe we should wait and see what happens on all plays, not call the travel because they didn't make a play just after it, I guess the game would go a lot faster and we wouldn't have that many game interupters.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by rocky
... ---so when is a foul a foul?

It's a foul when the contact interferes with normal offensive or defensive movements. (see 4-20 Fouls and 4-27 Incidental Contact)

Whether contact interfered with the normal movement is judgment. Sometimes, we need to see what happened after the contact to judge whether normal movement was restrained. On an "easy" lay-up, if the ball went in, we might say that normal movement was not hindered. But, if the shot is missed, we might give the benefit of the doubt to the offense.