Crash…no whistle
 

I need some help. Had this happen a couple of weeks ago and again tonight: I am at T in a 3 whistle game when the dribbler goes right down the middle of the lane and crashes into the defender about 6-8 ft from the goal. Due to player traffic I can't see if the defender has established LGP. A call from me would be nearly a guess. No whistle from C or L, either of which should have had a better view of defender position than I had. Of course, coaches hit the roof. I don't blame them. There was enough contact to have had a block or a charge.

I think we would all prefer for C or L to make this call. However, do you as T come with a delayed whistle because "someone needs to have a whistle on a crash in the paint?" Is there any way I can sharpen up to this play to help my partners who may "freeze" and make no call?

If you have an unrestricted view of the play and there is reason to believe that your partners don't, you might make this call. But based on your own words here (can't see, nearly a guess) sounds like you needed to leave it alone.

I had a carbon copy of that play last year. C & L have nothing. I'm not sure, but in my head I'm thinking, "this is one of those 'elephants' that needs a whistle to save the crew." The cue to my decision was the relative movement of the defender. He was in the center of a 3-2 zone and had been in the paint the whole time, and the drive was quick enough where the defense hadn't reacted much yet. So my educated guess was charge. I went with it. And oh golly gee did I sell it, even though it was noticeably late. No argument from either coach.

If it hadn't been such an elephant, I've got nothing.

C thanked me at halftime. Said he had a great look for a secondary whistle, but got surprised and froze. Happens to all of us.

Depends on how much you saw and how bad you think it was. If the offensive players ends up on top of the defender on the floor then you probably need a whistle, right or wrong. If you think the L or C could be no-calling a defender leaving early or something like that leave it alone. But if you have two players on the floor then you probably have something. In certain situations I think a total guess is better than nothing at all. It's all a feel for the situation and the temperature of the game.

Hmmmmmmmmm
 

I am uncomfortable with the replies given.
The three-person system is designed so that, when all partners are working the system, speculations and guesses as suggested -- even prescribed -- in previous posts are not necessary.
If one partner or the other, for whatever reason, doesn't get a look that the system sets him/her up for, or doesn't make the call that's required from him/her, the solution isn't for someone else to guess or speculate to pick up the slack. That's something totally different than a "crew saver," which sounds like the aim of the responses thus far.
I just don't get any sort of warm-and-fuzzies about this. Do you?
Or am I misunderstanding the responses so far?

Certainly the three-person system eliminates guessing but we are not talking about a failure of the referees to work the system but rather a human failure of not blowing the whistle on an obvious foul. I don't like the term "crew saver" but I do believe there are certain fouls where you need a call: even from Trail, and even if wrong. Keep in mind we are talking about a very select group of plays that don't happen very often.

Trust your partners
 

I've passed occassionally on plays where the shooter and defender bang into each other pretty hard but the contact was mutual and there was no advantage/disadvantage. Its about as 50/50 as you can get - the shooter and defender basically jump into each other at exactly the same time. If one of my partners reached out to get this they would be dead wrong either way because there would be no way they knew who fouled who.

If you can't trust your partner (especially in 3-man) then at least let them live or die in their area unless it is so big even Stevie Wonder could see it from the very last row. In 3-man I seldom see calls that big get missed by my partners unless there's been a break down in court cverage somewhere.

And remember, just because one or both coaches reacted doesn't mean anything (since they both wanted the call then maybe it was a good pass after all).

Guess???
 

I'm not a fan of guessing. If you didn't see it you shouldn't call it. In many cases I think there was a travel or a double dribble or the like but if I don't see it happen I can't call it. The same apples to these foul situations.

If you have enough information to confidently lean one way or the other (like the example by crosscountry) then blowing the whistle and flipping a coin is not something I could justify. There really is nothing you should do here but put your trust in others.

It is not possible for the defender and a shooter to jump into each other at exactly the same time and for it to be a 50/50 play. Either the defender established legal guarding position and jumped within his vertical plane making the shooter responsible for the contact, or the defender has not established LGP or has jumped outside of his vertical plane, thus making him responsible for the contact. Now, if you are referring to a play where two players without the ball are jumping for the ball from equally advantageous positions, I would agree there are times where there is no advantage/disadvantage, even though there could be severe contact.

Yes, but...
 

Yes, one player surely initiated contact before the other and 94.673% of the time its clear who it was and the advantage/disadvantage gained. But there are those times when the contact is marginal, has no real affect on the play (even if one player technically initiated the contact), or its difficult to tell who got their first so its ok to pass on it.

As I stated earlier in relation to the OP, unless you KNOW your partner blew it big, its best to leave it alone.

OP says dribbler went right down the middle? Who's primary did he start from. In my corner of Rome, C or T stays with the drive that starts in their primary. Even if it didn't start in my primary I'm closing down on that anticipating a quick pass or rebounding action and making sure I have a good look. "Down the middle" again, driver splitting two primaries I'm making sure I'm closing down and getting an angle.

In my case I did, and got stacked anyway by a passing teammate of the dribbler who was probably setting up for a kickback pass. Meanwhile C has a last second but open look at the defender in the middle and froze.

WRT Rich1, I hear ya and almost agree. But this was not 50/50. I'd say my educated guess was about 70/30. And the defender got laid out on the floor while the dribbler stumbled and lost his balance. I had to have a whistle.

Biggravy, your point is excellent. On a drive from one of the wings C or T can stay with it and likely get a decent look. My issue is the defender is a secondary one and must have come up from one of the blocks to challenge the drive. I was blocked from seeing whether he had LGP.

I will not guess in 3-man. One of my partners has to have a clear look and needs to make that call.

In 2-person there are times for an educated guess.

A secondary defender is likely going to require a call from an official other than the one following the drive to the basket.
So if the drive comes from T, the secondary defender could could from the PCA of either the L or C and that official should make the call. If the drive is from the C's side, most likely the secondary defender will come from the Lead's PCA, but he could come from the C's side outside the lane and that is when the L or even T may have to come help. This is the tough sitch in which the drive happens quickly after a skip pass and the crew doesn't have time to rotate.

Did you talk to your partners later to ask what they saw?

If you have an open look, come with a late whistle. But if you can't see it, then you need to leave it alone and have a discussion with your partners at halftime or after the game.

My post was not intended to address advantage gained, nor did it necessarily have anything to do with the severity of the contact. I was disputing your statement that there are instances where there are 50/50 plays between a player with the ball (a shooter specifically) and a defender getting to a particular spot. By rule, this is simply not true. That does not mean there has to be a call every time there is contact. Sometimes there is incidental contact that can be ignored. Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground.

Finally, to address a statement you make in this post, you should stop judging the legality of contact by its severity. There are times when marginal contact is and should be a foul. There are times severe contact is and should not be a foul. The question is not whether the contact is marginal or severe, it is whether or not it is incidental.

I disagree with this. I would say, most times, there should be a whistle if it's seen properly. I wouldn't call the exceptions rare, though.

I good legal screen can result with both players on the ground and no valid foul to call. As can a lot of loose ball contact where both players come from equally advantageous positions.

I have seen very few screens where both players have ended up on the ground. Normally the person setting the screen is prepared for the contact. They may be displaced, but they do not often fall. More often, the person being screened ends up on the ground.

In my experience, on loose balls where there is severe contact resulting from players coming into the play from equally advantageous positions, one player ends up on the ground and the other player ends up with the ball.

Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare. Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other.

Not sure where you gitte impression I use severity to judge the legality of contact. It is one of the factors used but much more goes into determining calls that should and should not be made.

As for marginal vs incidental, around here those terms are intechangeable and are used to describe contact that does not affect play. The term marginal is more preferred among the higher level refs in my area.

Hmmm.... Never say never I guess, but if a legal screen is set, and that screener ends up on the ground, I can't envision a scenario in which a foul shouldn't be called on the defense. If the screen is legal, D on the ground= play on, O on the ground= almost certainly something. Maybe I'd have to see it to be convinced, but can you elaborate?

A late correct whistle is ALWAYS better than an incorrect no-call....

The rules don't base the fouls on who initiates contact, regardless of how many officials use that term. In fact, the foul is often on the player who didn't initiate contact simply because they were not in a legal position. Basing fouls in who initiated the contact will often lead to the wrong foul call.

The rule on a screen requires the defender to attempt to stop upon contact, and specifically states the contact may be severe and still be incidental. It's under the incidental contact rule in rule 4.

Good discussion.

I had a similar play earlier this year, two man. I was the L, had a shooter drive the lane, both he and a defender go down, but too much traffic to see the contact. I was not comfortable doing nothing, but I'd be even less comfortable guessing, even with "90% rule" in the back of my head.

Some here say it's okay to guess, under the circumstances. I'd like some elaboration on that.

Here's the problem...
 

The problem with posts is the that what's intended isn't always what's read since we're not face to face for clarification. I understand exactly what you are saying and ref accordingly. My intent was to point out that while most of the time we have a clear basis on who was at fault for the contact (legal position, initiated first, etc.) there are times that we do not and therefore it is better to trust your partners no call rather than come in with a guess based on nothing.

However, if you are certain you had a better angle and/or you have enough to feel VERY confident reaching out to get it than I'm ok with that too; but you better be able to defend it with a lotmore than "I thought something happened there) if your partner wants to know why you were swimming in his end of the pool.

Again, I advocate erring on the side of trust and staying in your primary as much as you can. I am by no means territorial and think a good crew will pick up calks outside their PCA a few times per game but in my experience it happens when we know a partner was strait lined or we actually saw something big that the others did not.

Finally, to reiterate, completely agree with those who have made additional points about what constitutes a foul. Simply pointing out that there are some times good reasons a foul is not called so trust your partners as much as you can.

I meant to ask them, Adam, but failed to do it.

And a late INCORRECT whistle is always worse than an incorrect no-call.

I'd argue against that. I'd rather see someone make an incorrect call on a block/charge where both players go to the floor and a whistle is obviously needed.

We can work on fixing the incorrect call...failure to put a whistle on a play that needs it is usually a bigger problem in my experience.

I agree with Nevada.

I cringe when I hear people pre-game that if bodies are on the floor we HAVE to have a whistle on the play. Basketball is a contact sport. But we all know that all contact is not illegal. Sometimes there is contact and it looks ugly but its possible nobody did anything illegal. Play on.

I had this play last night. I'm C right in front of Coach A with his team on offense. Dribbler drives into a perfectly legal secondary defender near the top of the key, falls down, ball comes out, primary defender hits the floor too, the ball ends up going the other way with a layup for Team B.

Coach A says another phrase I hate, "that had to be something? A charge? (on his own player)." "Coach your player put his head down to dribble through a double team, lost the ball, and didn't displace anybody." It was something--ugly basketball--but not illegal. The T on the play and I talked during the next timeout and we both saw the exact same thing.

I prefer to pre-game that if we have bodies on floor we should either have a whistle or be able to explain how they got there. At times easier said than done but the focus should be on maintaining angles, refereeing the defense, and getting the play right.

Guessing and penalizing a player and team who did nothing worse than a no call IMO. Especially if you are doing so out of your primary.

I'm not saying the T should rush in and put a whistle on this (the OP).

I'm saying that the C/L who should've had good looks should have had a whistle. Matter of fact, I was the T last week when the same thing happened. I'm pretty sure that there was a block, but I just didn't have a good look and I stayed off it.

Most time when a player drives and he AND a defender go to the floor we are not going to no-call the play. No calling it because they didn't feel they had a good look or could make a decision or whatever isn't the right outcome.

I must confess that at the end of my first decade officiating HS BB I am still troubled by the idea of "make a call even if you aren't certain" in certain situations.

In the scenario we are discussing I have watched more refs than I want to think about call a travel just to "have a whistle" on a crash....

I believe it is on this board that I have heard more than once "if you can't explain it, you can't call it" or something similar.

If you think it rare for two or more players to end on the court due to Incidental Contact, then you haven't seen very many games.

MTD, Sr.

I guess, if you consider 60+ HS/college men's games per season for the last 10years running not many, then you would be correct.

I have officiated boys'/girls' JrHS/HS since 1971; women's college from 1974-2008 including 18 college playoff games and 20 jr. coll. playoff games; men's jr. college from 1993-2008; over 25 years of Special Olympics including over 20 Ohio Special Olympis Final Fours; one Speical Olympics World Summer Games; at least 40 AAU and YBOA boys' and girls' national championship tournaments (including three YBOA Girls' National Championship Games); countless AAU and YBOA invitationals; and MTD, Jr., and I just officiated a girls' JrHS doubleheader this morning that easily had 20 cases of players going to the floor due to Incidental Contact while going for the Ball.

And during the 1990's (Billy and Padgett, not the 1890's, though after today's games with Junior I feel like it was the 1890's.) I averaged approximately 400 hunderd games a year at all levels.

I think I have your 600 hundred games in ten years beat.

MTD, Sr.

Strongly agree. If the screener and the screenee both hit the floor then something illegal happened there, in all but the most rare circumstances.

Yeah there's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid. I pregame if we have a block/charge which ends with both players on the floor then we should probably have a whistle. Obviously there are many other plays where two players may hit the floor from incidental contact, I think most of the pregames that mention needing a whistle for two bodies on the floor are referencing block/charge plays.

There is not logical defense for your statement. Especially when you said and I qoute: "[T]here's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid."

MTD, Sr.

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take.

1. Mark, we are not speaking in absolutes.

2. We are making general statements on plays. We used words and phrases like "probably", "good indication", and "in all but the most rare circumstances". That leaves wiggle room because as you know Mark there is always a gray area in certain plays. That does not mean that we cannot say that from experience a certain type of play implies a certain type of result.

3. Seeing the whole play and making a decision as to the play are irrelevant to what johnny d and I are talking about. (Sorry johnny I don't mean to speak for you).

Irrelevant. More games ≠ more wisdom.

This is very true. More games may result in bad habits more deeply ingrained.

I think that there are plenty of times where two players can end up on the floor and have the contact incidental. But if it's on a screen, well, I guess I would have to see it to be convinced that it's possible to have a legal screen and that player hit the floor and not have a foul.

Rule reference, 4-24-4
"In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball."

In 25 years you won't feel that way, provided you don't have 1 year of experience 25 times.

The irony is that those who have "1 year's experience 25 times" . . .don't know it . . .

Everybody else does, though.

Fair enough. So if you were to see this live, and the defender bowls over the screener, and ends up on top of him on the ground, would you have no whistle here?

"Bowls over?" When I see that phrase, I think of a player literally running into, through, and over a screener.

The rule protects a blind-sided defender from being called for a foul on something he can't be honestly expected to see coming. Once he feels contact, he needs to attempt to stop. If he doesn't, I have a foul. If he does, it's incidental contact even if the screener ends up on the floor.

Ok, so one more question out of this, if the defender attempts to stop, and knocks down the screener, but that defender is still on his feet and ready to move on, still no foul, or HTBT? Just seems against the spirit of the rule for a player to set a legal screen, get displaced to the ground, and end up disadvantaged. I would almost feel better not calling it if they BOTH end up on the ground, at least then I can claim no advantage gained.

Yes, that's the intent of the rule. It's the risk inherent with setting a blind screen against a moving opponent. The screen was successful in slowing the defender. That should be enough.

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

I agree that if an illegal action has taken place then, if the officials are doing their jobs correctly, that illegal action will be seen and take appropriate action.

As I stated before:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take. And I would further add,

Four: If you, as an official are not doing One and Two, then why in the "H E Double Hockey Sticks" are you not?

MTD, Sr.

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

I gotcha. Again, in my neighborhood in Rome we pregame that L has that secondary defender on a drive. It sounds like you did what you could. I can see times in 3 whistle where two guys could maybe get straightlined. Pretty tough for all three to not get a look. Sounds like your C choked on his whistle and has some 'splaining to do!

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

There can't probably be a fouls, violations, substitutes, timeouts or any other reason to blow the whistle. If you couldn't see a travel or double dribble would you call one because the crowd reacts and you don't know how that series of actions out of your area took place? Are you blowing the whistle because a team probably needs a timeout or a sub?

If you see it call it. IF you see it outside your area and you know your colleague saw it but let it go. Let it go. IF you see it and you think your partner(S) missed it and its going to keep the game undercontrol or save the crew call it.

In all of those cases you are seeing things you clearly identify as calls. In none of those cases are you seeing something that was probably something and probably needs to be called.

MTD,

Whether or not I have seen the play and whether or not a foul was called on the play are irrelevant. Fouls happen all the time that are not penalized for a number of different reasons and fouls are called on plays where no infraction has occurred.

Yes I can make the statement that because there are bodies on the floor so there was probably a foul without believing in any fallacy. It is called statistics and there is a whole field of mathematics dedicated to it. I have seen enough plays while officiating and watching basketball to make the statement, using statistics, to say that on these plays a foul probably occurred. That statement does not in any way mean that each individual play shouldn't be judged on its merits or that there should be some default so that an official on the game automatically blows his whistle because there has to be a foul.

Ding, ding, ding...we have winner. Unless you saw how they got there, two bodies on the floor is NOTHING.

Johnny D:

You are correct about the using the word "probably" in this discussion. We should be using the word "possibly". Probabilites do not apply in deciding whether a foul was committed or not. I know that because as a structural engineer with a double major in civil and mechanical engineering and a minor in matheatics, I have taken courses in mathematical statistics and modern physics.

Still you and too many officials are buying into the mind set that there because there are "bodies on the floor" there was a "possible" foul.

MTD, Sr.

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.