Would you call a foul if it will give disadvantage to the team fouled?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

As most respondents have cited and recognized: the most appropriate call to make would be to just go ahead and call the foul--as it was glaring. We cannot predict whether the player would've made or missed the bunny (i.e., lay up). I have had this play several times, a few in a close game,where the bunny was made but waved it off--team was not in the bonus either. Fans and coaches erupted, but my crew kept it's composure and awarded the spot throw in.

Good case study for us, thanks for posting.

I disagree, assuming this is the play were still talking about:

A1 (offense) passes B1 and goes for a wide open layup, B2 sees that B1 lost the guy and intends to go for a hard foul by jumping into A1 without establishing legal position, A1 sees B2 coming for him and spots his teammate A2 wide open under the basket, passes the ball to A2 while A1 & B2 collides into each other while A2 receives the ball, in this case you would call a blocking foul on B2 or play on so A2 can proceed with an easy basket?

The only foul I am calling here is if the foul will be called intentional or flagrant.

If A2 misses the shot, tough luck. They got the most favorable option and blew it.

[Tio]

Fouls are fouls regardless of when/where they occur. If you deem the play marginal then it sounds like the best decision is to pass. If you think the contact is illegal you need to put a whistle on it. I would have a patient whistle and be sure to know the status of the ball - in shooting motion or on floor.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree, assuming this is the play were still talking about:



The only foul I am calling here is if the foul will be called intentional or flagrant.

If A2 misses the shot, tough luck. They got the most favorable option and blew it.

So Camron, are you saying you would not call a foul simply because it was a "foul" which would negate an easy layup opportunity?

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by camron rust

i disagree, assuming this is the play were still talking about:



The only foul i am calling here is if the foul will be called intentional or flagrant.

If a2 misses the shot, tough luck. They got the most favorable option and blew it.

x2

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

So Camron, are you saying you would not call a foul simply because it was a "foul" which would negate an easy layup opportunity?

In general, that is correct. Intentiona/Flagrant, yes. Types of fouls declared as automatic aside, a passer that gets hit after the release that goes to a wide open layup will not get a foul call.

It is all about the intent and purpose along with the definition of a foul:

ART. 1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.

What normal defensive or offensive movement is prevented by such a foul if his/her teammate is just about to shoot an undefended layup?

I've even no called it when the passer threw the ball ahead to the teams undefended sharpshooter on the wing. The coach (right by me) started to say something about it and I replied to him that his sharpshooter was catching the ball, he looked and saw it, shut up...then swish for 3. Right call, every day.

[potato]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In general, that is correct. Intentiona/Flagrant, yes. Types of fouls declared as automatic aside, a passer that gets hit after the release that goes to a wide open layup will not get a foul call.

It is all about the intent and purpose along with the definition of a foul:

what if the pass happens around the same moment as the impact and:

1.The pass was smooth & successful to the open man
2.The pass was totally off and went out of bounds/turnover

would you have called it differently under the 2 scenarios.

[biggravy]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Specific to this scenario I think I would look at it as follows:

The player is now a passer (not dribbling or shooting).

1)Did the contact disadvantage the player.? ie. IMpact pass, stop the play, take the offensive player out of the play entirely.

2) Is the contact excessive? UNsporting, rough, dangerous

3) Is the contact likely to lead to rough play? Retaliation, expectation that this level of play or contact should be common and ok throughout the game, etc.

If I've got 3 nos we are playing on no whistle. If I've got a yes to any I'm calling the foul.

This answer wins! At least in my book! Not much to add to it!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by potato

what if the pass happens around the same moment as the impact and:

1.The pass was smooth & successful to the open man
2.The pass was totally off and went out of bounds/turnover

would you have called it differently under the 2 scenarios.

#1...no call
#2...depends on the timing of the contact.

[Rich]

There's a lock coming to this thread soon if it doesn't turn the corner...

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In general, that is correct. Intentiona/Flagrant, yes. Types of fouls declared as automatic aside, a passer that gets hit after the release that goes to a wide open layup will not get a foul call.

It is all about the intent and purpose along with the definition of a foul:



What normal defensive or offensive movement is prevented by such a foul if his/her teammate is just about to shoot an undefended layup?

I've even no called it when the passer threw the ball ahead to the teams undefended sharpshooter on the wing. The coach (right by me) started to say something about it and I replied to him that his sharpshooter was catching the ball, he looked and saw it, shut up...then swish for 3. Right call, every day.

Camron, this is a good summary of what I believe is the majority opinion on this board (and the larger officiating community) interpreting advantage/disadvantage. At the risk of being in the super-minority, I respectfully disagree. I am more for the a "foul is a foul" school of thought. I don't like the technique of waiting to see if the shot goes in to determine if there is a foul. This play falls in a similar vain. I interpret "normal offensive and defensive movements" to mean normal physical movements (e.g. movement, keeping balance, etc.), not the result of what a particular player is able to play through.

I find it contradictory that the NHFS and NCAA have repeatedly over the last several years issued POE and other directives, including the recently issued "automatic" fouls on ball handlers, to curb rough play, while at the same time officials go out of their way to come up with reasons to classify significant contact as legal.

Again, I understand my opinion is in the minority.

[Adam]

A worthy discussion, so I cleaned it up a bit.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Camron, this is a good summary of what I believe is the majority opinion on this board (and the larger officiating community) interpreting advantage/disadvantage. At the risk of being in the super-minority, I respectfully disagree. I am more for the a "foul is a foul" school of thought. I don't like the technique of waiting to see if the shot goes in to determine if there is a foul. This play falls in a similar vain. I interpret "normal offensive and defensive movements" to mean normal physical movements (e.g. movement, keeping balance, etc.), not the result of what a particular player is able to play through.

I find it contradictory that the NHFS and NCAA have repeatedly over the last several years issued POE and other directives, including the recently issued "automatic" fouls on ball handlers, to curb rough play, while at the same time officials go out of their way to come up with reasons to classify significant contact as legal.

Again, I understand my opinion is in the minority.

My thing is, if you are going to be in the majority, then you need to choose your words wisely when explaining the no-call to the coach.

"You had an easy lay-up" or "you're player should have made it" aren't acceptable. "I kicked it" or "I missed it" are not honest.

"Didn't feel the contact put your team at a disadvantage" would be the best characterization of why the call was not made. (it's also within my personal standard of 10 words or fewer when giving an explanation)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My thing is, if you are going to be in the majority, then you need to choose your words wisely when explaining the no-call to the coach.

"You had an easy lay-up" or "you're player should have made it" aren't acceptable. "I kicked it" is not honest.

"I didn't feel the contact put your team at a disadvantage" would be the best characterization of why the call was not made.

"Coach, his pass went right to where he wanted it to go and you had a wide open layup."

It's not too unlike the idea that we pass on a slap on the arm as a dribbler drives by the defender.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

"Coach, his pass went right to where he wanted it to go and you had a wide open layup."

It's not too unlike the idea that we pass on a slap on the arm as a dribbler drives by the defender.

I don't like telling a coach what he should prefer. That explanation can easily get a justifiable, "Just call the foul", from the coach, or "that would have been his 5th foul".

I'd rather stick to an explanation that is explicitly grounded in the concept of advantage/disadvantage.

"Didn't feel the contact put your team at a disadvantage" can be used for the slap on the arm, or the pass & crash.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't like telling a coach what he should prefer. That explanation can easily get a justifiable, "Just call the foul", from the coach.

Some coaches will cry when you call the foul, others will cry when you don't. I rarely have to give an explanation, though. The coach who complains about this call or no-call isn't going to be satiated by your explanation anyway.