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

[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)