Flow vs. Rules

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Oh, I wouldn't say that... just think it. My actual reaction would probably be something like "a foul is a foul, regardless of where it's committed."

Even that is not really that accurate.

[Freddy]

A. Games that flow and necessary of ball fouls called need not be mutually exclusive.

B. Games experienced and studied on video that seemed to get out of control most frequently had ballwatching Officials who, with no clue of off ball primary surveillance principles, missed calls off ball that were the initial seeds of the rough play that cropped up later.

C. Those who complain about off ball fouls aren't looking where you are paid to look. But they will complain more if, by ignoring those calls, you thereby let the game get out of control.

Just some initial random thoughts on the OP...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Those who complain about off ball fouls aren't looking where you are paid to look.

Rookie officials, and some experienced officials, as well as all coaches, and all fans, need to have this tattooed on their chests.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Freddy

C. Those who complain about off ball fouls aren't looking where you are paid to look.

True, and it makes those statements undertstandable when they come from coaches and fans.

Would anybody dare say that an official that says it could be a ball-watcher?

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even that is not really that accurate.

Please elaborate.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Please elaborate.

Contact is situational. The very same contact may or may not be a foul depending on the game situation.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Contact is situational. The very same contact may or may not be a foul depending on the game situation.

I'm clearly not referring to whether or not contact in Case A is the same as contact in Case B, and whether or not it's a foul.

If a player fouls another player (not saying similar contact, but an actual foul), then it doesn't matter where it occurs... relative to the position of the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm clearly not referring to whether or not contact in Case A is the same as contact in Case B, and whether or not it's a foul.

If a player fouls another player (not saying similar contact, but an actual foul), then it doesn't matter where it occurs... relative to the position of the ball.

The problem is, "a foul is a foul..." is really a meaningless statement. It's a truism. Most of us know what you mean, but I wouldn't use it with a coach, because too many of them will hear "contact is a foul...."

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Adam

The problem is, "a foul is a foul..." is really a meaningless statement. It's a truism. Most of us know what you mean, but I wouldn't use it with a coach, because too many of them will hear "contact is a foul...."

I'm pretty sure a coach would know that there is legal contact in a basketball game, so they wouldn't need me to dumb it down like that.

But thanks for looking out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm pretty sure a coach would know that there is legal contact in a basketball game, so they wouldn't need me to dumb it down like that.

But thanks for looking out.

Let me say it another way, 99% of the time I see it used, it's used as a sort of rebuttal against advantage/disadvantage concepts. As in, "You can't apply advantage, because a foul is a foul."

When I hear it from coaches, it's after I let incidental contact go uncalled. Maybe your experience is different, though. We're just explaining why some officials around here flinch when we hear the phrase.

[JRutledge]

I have heard very few supervisors or clinicians talk about flow anymore. The new rules or past guidelines have helped eliminate that part of the discussion.

Peace