Do you guess?

[Chris Whitten]

Two whistle game. I am Trail opposite table. A1 is dribbling near the sideline tableside and barely in his frontcourt when B1 steals the ball. Just over the centerline B1 is able to dribble past A1 and is approximately 3 feet ahead of him when B1 trips . Due to the quick turnover, I am viewing the play from roughly 90* and cannot detect any contact. It looked awful, but not seeing any contact I have to believe he tripped on his own. Anybody believe it is proper (for game management's sake, to keep yourself out of hot water, etc) to assume/call a foul on A1? I mean, it must certainly have happened, right?

[JugglingReferee]

That spot on the floor is known as the toughest spot in 2-man. I've adopted a position to be closer to the ball, but more in the BC when officiating that location. This adjustment hasn't let me down in 12 years.

Call what you see. See what you call. Having said that, I have used experience to bail me out of a call before. And I've seen others do it. These times are rare though. You have to decide for yourself because if you're wrong, you have a lot of explaining to do as your administer the subsequent throw-in.

[HokiePaul]

assuming a foul that didn't happen can get you in just as much hot water as missing a foul. I'm not going to assume a foul if I saw nothing.

However, if I saw something (but not everything), I'd be more inclined to make an assumption. For example, if I saw what looked like minimal contact but then the player goes down, I might have a foul (assuming that contact may have been worse than what I saw). But like I said, if I saw no contact and a player went down, I've got nothing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

For example, if I saw what looked like minimal contact but then the player goes down, I might have a foul (assuming that contact may have been worse than what I saw). But like I said, if I saw no contact and a player went down, I've got nothing.

1) How "minimal" the contact was has very little to do whether it was a foul. If a player goes down, then the contact caused a disadvantage and should be a foul. You don't need to assume the contact was worse than you saw.

2) Seeing no contact is different from not seeing contact. It's the latter that's being discussed.

[pfan1981]

I had a similar situation last night. I was the T on a backcourt throw-in under the hoop. She inbounds and a quick pass and the ball is at the 3 point line on the other side. There is a block/charge situation, there was contact initiated by the dribbler, did the defense have LGP......ugh!

I was hustling down the floor, but was in no position to make the call. 2 person crew, so my partner was on the baseline, but had girls between him and the play. I no called it. And the coach let me know it, I explained that I didn't have a good enough look at it.

Was I right to no call this?

pfan

ps, this is why you need 3 person

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) How "minimal" the contact was has very little to do whether it was a foul. If a player goes down, then the contact caused a disadvantage and should be a foul. You don't need to assume the contact was worse than you saw.

Understand this point. However, contact, followed by a player going down doesn't always mean that it should be a foul. It happens quite frequently that a defender attempts to draw a charge by exagerating the effect of contact. If the official sees the whole play clearly, we would have no call. My point was the same here. If I thought that the contact was minimal, and then the player goes down, you have to make an assumption. Either 1) the player went down on his/her own or exagerated the contact or 2) the contact was what caused the player to go down. In this case, I'm generally assuming option 2. In other cases (e.g. a block/charge situation), I might assume option 1.

[twocentsworth]

Don't. Ever. Guess.....ever.