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

[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.

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

+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 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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[potato]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[Rob1968]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by potato

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by KCRC

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[potato]

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.

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.