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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

...

Because of uncalled contact X on Y spot of the floor Player A1 missed a layup.

Usually this is an issue with coaches *when* A1 misses a layup and is faulty logic. My response addresses the action that the coach is really upset with. The missed layup, not the no-call.

Originally Posted by Valley Man

Don't forget the crap you will get from A coach, bench, and fans if A2 misses the easy layup and you passed on the foul so not to take it away

Originally Posted by deecee

There it is.

There what is? You said coaches blame the missed lay-up on the contact elsewhere on the floor. I get that from your use of the word "BECAUSE". Don't see that in the quoted post, or anywhere else in this thread.

What I see is that you will pass on an obvious foul b/c you think another, unrelated player should make an easy lay-up. And if the he misses the lay-up, no one should talk about the obvious foul you passed on.

[Adam]

A few years ago, I was working a JV boys game. First half, A1 caught a pass in transition between the table and B's bench and immediately passed to a wide open A2. I called a foul because B1 came up and bumped A1 pretty good (displacement of a couple of steps due to the contact).

I wish I'd had that one back. A1 completed the offensive movements he was trying to do, and it should have led to a wide-open layup if I'd seen the big picture.

No, I'm not going to wait to see if a basket is made on a potential shooting foul, but I will process whether I think the contact had any significant impact on the difficulty of the shot. In my case, the pass was gone before the contact was made, there was no need for that call.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

Don't forget the crap you will get from A coach, bench, and fans if A2 misses the easy layup and you passed on the foul so not to take it away

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.

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.

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

[MathReferee]

If there is a foul, call the foul. With that said, see the play start, develop and finish to determine whether or not a foul actually occurred. There is an interesting video on Arbiter for NCAA women that was posted last week that shows this exact scenario (it is a 'You Make the Call' video). There is a pass/crash with B1 fouling screener A2 while A1 passes to a wide open A3 for a layup. The calling official on the play waved the basket and called B1 for a pushing foul. The three optional answers were: a) no call - play on, b) foul on B1 and count the basket, c) foul on B1 and do not count the basket.

Answer a) only received 2% of the vote, so the option to no call a foul when the foul eliminates an easy scoring opportunity for the offense is not a highly regarded option. The other two options were to determine whether or not the foul occurred prior to the shooting motion of A3.

[deecee]

BNR, it looks like you are making assumptions on what I said based on who knows what. I outlined the 2 possible outcomes from what was described.

Everyone knows that the only time the coach will complain is if his kid misses the layup. Therefore the contact is not what upsets them, they are just looking for something to complain about.

Calling a foul that needs to be called versus not finding some contact illegal has nothing to do with future actions. You can extrapolate whatever conclusion you wish it doesn't change the fact that the hypothetical is difficult to adjudicate. The theoretical principal of "don't pass on an obvious foul simply due to some advantageous position the offense is in" is a simpler yes/no answer. But the level of contact on such a play is very different than a ball handler driving the lane and going up for a layup/dunk.

No one should complain about a foul/non-foul simply because their desired outcome wasn't met. Complain either way, but not because something happened. I don't want to hear it if that's the case. In all cases something like this happened, the coach immediately reminded his kids to "make their layups". He knows, I know, Naismith knows that the frustration lies in the missed 2 points not the foul/non-foul.

The post I quoted uses the word "IF" to show cause and effect. In linear logic it works this way

IF A2 misses layup THEN Coach/Fans complain ELSE Coach/Fans Cheer.

Don't see what's complicated about that, since that's what the statement said. I still don't see how you extrapolated a conclusion to my thought and how "I" would call some hypothetical when I listed the 2 potential outcomes. How in the heck you concluded that I have to call it 1 way is beyond me. But if you could tell the future I would love to know who you think will win the Super Bowl so I can make me some money.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

BNR, it looks like you are making assumptions on what I said based on who knows what. I outlined the 2 possible outcomes from what was described.

Everyone knows that the only time the coach will complain is if his kid misses the layup. Therefore the contact is not what upsets them, they are just looking for something to complain about.
Calling a foul that needs to be called versus not finding some contact illegal has nothing to do with future actions. You can extrapolate whatever conclusion you wish it doesn't change the fact that the hypothetical is difficult to adjudicate. The theoretical principal of "don't pass on an obvious foul simply due to some advantageous position the offense is in" is a simpler yes/no answer. But the level of contact on such a play is very different than a ball handler driving the lane and going up for a layup/dunk.

No one should complain about a foul/non-foul simply because their desired outcome wasn't met. Complain either way, but not because something happened. I don't want to hear it if that's the case. In all cases something like this happened, the coach immediately reminded his kids to "make their layups". He knows, I know, Naismith knows that the frustration lies in the missed 2 points not the foul/non-foul.

The post I quoted uses the word "IF" to show cause and effect. In linear logic it works this way

IF A2 misses layup THEN Coach/Fans complain ELSE Coach/Fans Cheer.

Don't see what's complicated about that, since that's what the statement said. I still don't see how you extrapolated a conclusion to my thought and how "I" would call some hypothetical when I listed the 2 potential outcomes. How in the heck you concluded that I have to call it 1 way is beyond me. But if you could tell the future I would love to know who you think will win the Super Bowl so I can make me some money.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where anyone stated that the reason the lay-up was missed was BECAUSE contact was passed on. So far, you are the only who typed such nonsense.

And last week, at a pretty high profile HS, I had a coach complain on at least 3 separate occasions when we didn't call a foul for his ball-handler even though each time the player ended up driving to the basket and scoring. So that bolded statement by you is the usual made up assumption and conjecture you like throw into conversations.

As far as "linear logic", I don't think you know what that is. More like "faulty logic".

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm still waiting for you to show me where anyone stated that the reason the lay-up was missed was BECAUSE contact was passed on. So far, you are the only who typed such nonsense.

And last week, at a pretty high profile HS, I had a coach complain on at least 3 separate occasions when we didn't call a foul for his ball-handler even though each time the player ended up driving to the basket and scoring. So that bolded statement by you is the usual made up assumption and conjecture you like throw into conversations.

As far as "linear logic", I don't think you know what that is. More like "faulty logic".

What did you tell the coach

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

What did you tell the coach

Nothing. I ran up to the other end of the court.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Rich]

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