+1. I think when hiring coaches one of the skill sets required is ability to complain when things don't go their way, and the inability to accept things for what they are.

I had a great :p discussion before half time ended yesterday with a coach regarding a no-call on a PC foul or no call where the offensive player created some contact, the defender barely was dislodged a step back, the offensive player falls off balance and puts up an errant air ball that the defense recovered.

Could it have been a PC? yes. But I didn't think the level of contact created enough advantage for the offensive player to warrant a whistle. The coach could not accept that.

Whether or not they will be satisfied, my explanation cannot in no way be turned against me. Telling a coach his team had an open lay-up is not where I want to go.

And I can understand that. Frankly, I say as little as possible anyway.

I normally leave it at, "there was no advantage, coach."

The conversation isn't going to last long enough to get beyond that.

So We're Both In The Minority ...
 

I agree (while keeping in mind advantage, disadvantage, incidental, etc.). I especially agree with the second statement. We have a top varsity official who insists that there should never be an "and one" call. Never. Ever. According to him, if the ball went in then there wasn't enough contact to call a foul. Luckily, not to many of our top officials fully agree with his philosophy. If an official is calling dozens, and dozens, of "and ones" every week, that official may be calling the game a little too tight, but to use the statement "never", at least to me, is a little strong.

I too agree with that. I don't wait to see if it goes in. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about contact with a passer after they have passed the ball such that any foul call would kill an advantage for the offensive team.

On shots, I'm in the school of calling a foul if the contact that can be ruled as illegal makes the shot more difficult. If the shooter still makes the shot through the contact, they deserve the extra shot in my opinion.

What we're talking about is more like a shooter who has landed and is trying to move for the rebound. If the shot goes in, there is no rebound and we often pass on calls at those times that will be a foul if there is a rebound to be played.

If you don't look at what happens next upon contact, how would you judge if a shot has been affected due to the body contact, if it looked like it could or couldn't have affected the shots? I know some refs determine based on the outcome of the shot, that is why they waited to see how the ball goes.

i don't think refs are obliged to explain to coaches & players the reason they call a foul or not, it's just a goodwill to explain to them, that is all.

when you say something like your player got a open pass, it makes you sound bias, you should just stick to the rule book, in this case whether there was a disadvantage on the play due to the contact.

It seems to me that some of the difficulty in calling/no-calling such contact is inherent in the wording of the "Incidental Contact" statement:

4-27-3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

The language used in this statement, implies that the "opponent" is the individual player who received the contact, and not the team, to which that individual opponent belongs. The extension of the perception of effect of that contact, to the teammates of that individual opponent seems not to be the intent of the statement.
Thus, the contact initiated by A1 on opponent B1 seems to elicit a judgement of the effect of that contact, only on B1, with no regard to actions by B1 - such as a pass to B2. It is the disconnect of those two actions - the contact on B1 and the pass to B2, that tends to cause further scrutiny by other parties, such as the coaches of the two teams.
Game management, game flow, game interrupters - in the form of calls that influence the overall play - are terms that may be used regarding such points of philosophy.

It is very hard to teach newer, inexperienced officials, appropriate appliciation of such philosophy, when they are struggling to "just get the calls right." The over-reach of such philosophies, beyond the written content of the rules, can be judged from extremely varied, and disparate points of view.

Coaches who "give you crap" for this are the sort of coaches who are going to give you crap for a whole bunch of other stuff anyway so I wouldn't be worried about it.

The vast majority of coaches I know and whose games I work understand why you pass on a play like this and expect good officials to do so.

I think these are good considerations and perspective in looking at this type of play.

Read the incidental contact rule.

The "your player got an open pass" line doesn't work in the game. If a coach finds himself in a place where we're having a philosophical discussion, then I'll make that point. In a game? "There was no advantage, coach." At this point, the ball is in play anyway, so that's as far as we get.

And I don't think you know what the word "bias" means.

well telling a coach there was "no advantage" is very different from some folks here that said they will tell the coach:"you're guy got an open pass" because when you say that it makes a ref sound like he's doing a favour for the team, which makes him sound bias so might as well not say anything.

a no advantage doesn't affect the play sounds more neutral compared to what some folks mentioned how they would explain to the coaches, but still saying less is better as saying more would just open up a never ending debate with the benches.

also talking to coaches during game kind of takes away some concentration on the game, even if it's during a dead ball.

I agree with Adam in that you don't seem to have a clear concept of what "bias" or biased means. Its not bias, in the way that you seem to be suggesting, because we would do the exact same thing for a similar call on the other end of the court.

And talking to coaches can take away from concentration in a game but its also a general requirement for working games above the JV level. There are a handful of coaches to whom I MIGHT say, "your kid had an open layup" but, as others have said its best to just reference advantage/disadvantage and keep it moving.

Talking to coaches, just like knowing when to pass or not pass on plays like this are all part of the art of officiating. As much as people want to have black and white interpretations of the rules there will always be things that are subjective and require discretion. Call selection and knowing when and how to talk to coaches is all part of that and is largely what distinguishes average, good, and elite officials at respective levels.