Foul or Incidental (video)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Foul.

This play HAS to have a whistle!

Why?

[MD Longhorn]

Both players are jumping up diagonally (pause it when they contact the ball - it's clear). It even appears (in slo mo) red gets to the ball first. I'd probably call a foul on red at full speed too ... but there's no "level of contact that requires a call" and I wouldn't fault an official who didn't whistle this, or even one that went against white.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by johnny d

The level of contact does not dictate whether or not you have to have a foul. Do not adopt this as a philosophy for identifying fouls. There can be all kinds of plays with severe contact between two players that do not require foul calls.

That may be ideally true but with severe contact assignors generally WANT a whistle.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by deecee

That may be ideally true but with severe contact assignors generally WANT a whistle.

None of the assignors I work for in college or HS want a whistle just because there is severe contact. They all want whistles on plays that are fouls, regardless of the severity of the contact that caused the foul.

[johnny d]

Now if you want to argue that in most plays when there is severe contact there is also a foul involved, I can agree with that. However, to reiterate my previous point, the severity of contact or lack thereof is not a criteria that should ever be used to determine whether or not a foul occurred.

[BatteryPowered]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Now if you want to argue that in most plays when there is severe contact there is also a foul involved, I can agree with that. However, to reiterate my previous point, the severity of contact or lack thereof is not a criteria that should ever be used to determine whether or not a foul occurred.

Isn't that basically the definition of advantage/disadvantage? It is to me.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered

Isn't that basically the definition of advantage/disadvantage? It is to me.

No the severity of contact does not by definition mean advantage/disadvantage. Not even close. First, two players can be in equally advantageous positions going for the ball, there could be severe contact with both of them ending up on the ground, and no foul call is required on the play. In this case, it doesn't matter which player hit the other player harder, they both had an equal chance to get the ball, and no advantage was necessarily gained because one player contacted the other player more severely. Second, last night I officiated a game between two below average teams made up of teams with very little ability and athleticism. A player was going to the basket and was contacted marginally by a defender. In most games I officiate, the offensive player would have gone right through this level of contact and completed the play at the basket. No foul would have been necessary. However, the players on the court last night were not able to play through this level of contact, and fouls needed to be called on most of these plays. In this game, there were many times marginal contact affected RSBQ. In most of my other games, a much more severe level of contact would be necessary to afftect RSBQ and result in a foul. Severity of contact does not necessarily mean there is an advantage or disadvantage.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered

Isn't that basically the definition of advantage/disadvantage? It is to me.

It can be related, but they're not the same thing.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by johnny d

No the severity of contact does not by definition mean advantage/disadvantage. Not even close. First, two players can be in equally advantageous positions going for the ball, there could be severe contact with both of them ending up on the ground, and no foul call is required on the play. In this case, it doesn't matter which player hit the other player harder, they both had an equal chance to get the ball, and no advantage was necessarily gained because one player contacted the other player more severely. Second, last night I officiated a game between two below average teams made up of teams with very little ability and athleticism. A player was going to the basket and was contacted marginally by a defender. In most games I officiate, the offensive player would have gone right through this level of contact and completed the play at the basket. No foul would have been necessary. However, the players on the court last night were not able to play through this level of contact, and fouls needed to be called on most of these plays. In this game, there were many times marginal contact affected RSBQ. In most of my other games, a much more severe level of contact would be necessary to afftect RSBQ and result in a foul. Severity of contact does not necessarily mean there is an advantage or disadvantage.

I had a screen earlier this season in the backcourt of a boys game that almost knocked the guy that got screened out. As soon it happened, his coach started in with me, saying I didn't see it. I shut it down in a hurry by telling him it was a perfectly legal screen. A few seconds later I heard a player on the bench tell the coach the same thing -- apparently HE didn't actually see it and went off on the result.

BTW, I killed it once A crossed half-court and the player was still down in the backcourt.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BatteryPowered

While neither was without fault, I agree with a foul on red.

I have to admit, since I started up again this is the call I have the most trouble with. Two players going for the ball and neither without fault...a play where the level of contact dictates you HAVE to have a whistle but on who. Until I get back into a better groove, see more, pick the brain of better officials, etc. I have just been giving the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player.

At least that way only one coach and half the gym is hissed off at me.

I disagree with you that neither player was at fault. White Player was in a more advantageous position than the Red Player: Easy one to call, foul on Red.

MTD, Sr.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Both players are jumping up diagonally (pause it when they contact the ball - it's clear). It even appears (in slo mo) red gets to the ball first. I'd probably call a foul on red at full speed too ... but there's no "level of contact that requires a call" and I wouldn't fault an official who didn't whistle this, or even one that went against white.

Looks to me like the white player is reaching diagonally. However if we look at where both players jump from in relation to their bodies when the contact takes place is seems that red is moving into white. I think red may contact the ball first but doesn't her moving into white make that a moot point?

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Why?

Because it's a foul?