I don't mean to be rude, but we don't really need a resume on every other post you make.

Mark, I think he's saying that odds are, if there are bodies on the floor, there was a foul. I'm guessing video review would bear that out. I'm not sure what your disagreement is, here.

The disagreement, at least from my POV, is that I think this is an inherently flawed approach to officiating. Of course, when there are bodies on the floor the "odds" are there was a foul. But we don't officiate based on odds. We officiate based on seeing the whole play. And IMO that should be the focus, not reacting to the results when we didn't see the play, which is what the OP is really about.

I find it ironic that Johnny D suggests in this thread that people "should stop judging the legality of contact by its severity" then goes on to say that "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other", which is effectively suggesting that you judge the legality of contact by the severity of the result.

I also have a problem with this statement- "Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground." Are the odds in favor that there was a foul when two players are on the ground? Yes. But I strongly disagree that it is a "rarely, if ever" scenario. Again, basketball is a contact sport with big, fast athletes. Sometimes guys end up on the ground even though nothing illegal has occurred.

I just think that the philosophy that many support of "we need a whistle any time we have bodies on the floor" is a bad one. It teaches officials to react to the result and places less of a focus on seeing the whole play and knowing WHY bodies are on the floor IMO. Really, bodies being on the floor is irrelevant to whether or not a foul should be called if we are doing our job and refereeing the play. We will see the displacement or illegal actions and penalize those for what they are, not the result of bodies being on the ground.

Yes, there are occasions where officials don't have needed whistles on crashes due to indecision, being to close to a play, straightlined, freezing up, etc. but hopefully when those instances occur one of the other 2 officials had a good look at the play and helps their partner out. The OP, however, asks about a play where there was no whistle and he didn't have a good look. I don't agree with the justifications suggested in this thread that adhere to the above philosophy that I think is flawed.

I really wish the OP would have discussed this with his partners after the game as that would have been the most useful feedback in all of this. But I do think this is good for discussion b/c IMO there are too many instances of officials just reacting to the results of contact and punishing players and teams when they did not see the whole play and nothing illegal happened.

VaTerp,

I think you missed this post, which addresses the relevant points (underlined and bold) of not making calls on things we don't see because of what most likely happened.

That was the statement with which I disagreed as well.

I did see that post and thanks- it contains important clarifications. But I still have a problem with the overall implications of the suggestion that "bodies on the floor NEED whistles."

Reason being that it is unnecessary and focuses on the wrong things IMO. I have full confidence that experienced officials like yourself and many of the other esteemed members of this forum make every effort to see the whole play and call what you see.

The problem I have, though, is what I stated earlier. I hear this in too many pre-games and I think, while well-intentioned, it sends the wrong message to less experienced officials. Again, in my experience there are too many officials putting whistles on plays simply as a result of, and reaction to, seeing bodies on the floor and then guessing at what happened. When the focus should be on maintaining angles, seeing the whole play, refereeing the defense, etc. so we know WHY bodies are on the floor. I would rather see the latter emphasized.

Yes, and I think this mindset is part of the problem. The "that has to be something" mindset that suggests that there HAS to have been a foul called simply b/c people hit the ground. While there is often, or even usually, a foul when players hit the ground, my experience is that having players on the ground without anything illegal actually occurring it is not nearly as rare as others suggest.

I prefer to use this information to realize that I need to know how and why bodies are on the floor. If I don't know, I'm going to assume I missed something, but I'm not going to call anything. I'm going to remember what it was that caused me to look somewhere else and learn from it.

Hypothesis ...
 

Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, we've been told over, and over, again, that if there is a block/charge (I'm not talking about screens, or a loose ball, here) train wreck, that we have to put a whistle on it, even if we're surprised by the play, or for some reason, don't get a clear look at it. We are expected to use any little information that we may have available to us, combined with the years of experience that most of us have, to make a call. It's not just a flip a coin guess, it's an educated guess.

I fully realize that this is a "When in Rome ..." situation, and that others will be handling this in a much different, and probably better, manner.

Unfortunately, the guiding principal here is not the rule book, but what you call that idiotic philosophy. Those assignors decide who works for them and if you don't adhere to their view, you won't be working any games.

I had a play at a college tryout camp a few years ago. The ball is knocked away from the dribbler in the front court near the top of the key, when B2 and A2, from equally advantageous positions, dive for the ball and make severe contact -- so much that one player has to leave the game with a concussion.

From the C, I saw the whole play and make no call because neither player did anything illegal. As the trainers are attending to the injuries, the clinician asked why I passed on the foul and I told him. He said that he thought I was too close to the play and that the trail needed to "get the call" from across the court.

The trail asked who should the foul be on, since he saw the play the same way I did. The clinician asked if we knew the foul count. Yes, it was 6-3. Then call it on the team with three fouls, he said. Another clinician made the same point: there HAD to be a foul call on a play where a player suffers a concussion because of an injury with an opposing player. No call was not acceptable. He did not care on which team the foul was called.

It IS an idiotic philosophy and your experience just proved it.

The second point your experience shows is the concept of knowing the foul count. Yes, we should know the foul count, but not to call a foul with the lower foul count or appeasing a coach who thinks he is getting "homered". You don't know how many coaches have accused me and my parrtner(s) that we are homering him on his own home court when the foul totals are to his advantage; I even had the HC of the Home team make that comment on the first foul of the game in a women's college game.

I have attended camps and have been a clinician at camps. The mindset of some people in charge of officiating is frightening.

I know that when one attends a camp, one is really supposed to keep one's mouth shut, nod yes, and do what your told, but I would have politely asked why a foul should have been called when no foul occured. I could not have let that clinician's philosophy go unchallenged. Of course at my age (63) I am in my 44th year of officiating and officiated women's college for 34 years, which allows me the luxuary of being curmudgeonly old cuss, :p.

MTD, SR

The question was indeed asked. And the answer is what many here have said in some way: if there are bodies on the floor caused by contact, then there has to be a foul. The head clinician made it as clear as you have noted: if there is a train crash, there MUST be a foul. We had to judge which player created the illegal contact. He offered one way to make that decision: give it to the team with the fewer fouls. But he truly did not care which team was assessed a foul, only that one be called.

The expected standards of the assignor (or the veteran clinicians) have to be followed if you want to work in that league -- no matter what you and I think the rule book says.

The only problem with that is that is it completely incorrect.