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

I know you guys go by the book and will call a foul when there's a foul, but would you ever consider the situation before deciding whether to call a foul or play on? I know sometimes for a shooting foul the refs would wait and see how the shot goes to determine if body contacts affected the shot.

But for example a scenario where:

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 rules (regarding fouls) are different for a player with the ball versus without. For example, two hands on the ball handler is an automatic foul while two hands on a non-ball handler is not necessarily a foul. Similarly, when judging how a players RSBQ is affected, not having the ball makes a difference (it takes more contact to affect a non-dribblers RSBQ, in my opinion). If the ball handler passes the ball to a teammate, he is a non-ball handler and the contact can be judged differently. So something that might be a foul on a shooter may not be a foul on a player who has just passed the ball.

That said, if there is an clear foul, then it should be called regardless. It's not our job to judge what team is helped by a foul. If that were the case, then we would pass on a lot of fouls late in the game to keep the clock running. Perhaps that foul that you pass on is the 5th foul on a star player and the team would rather have the foul than the points. I think we get into trouble when we start trying to overthink things. Just apply the rules.

You do have the option of an intentional foul by the defense which sounds like it could fit in your scenario (contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position; contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play; contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball; excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live). Also, if the contact with the passer is not immediate, it may occur after the shot (and the basket would count if good).

This is a HTBT situation. The 2 possible outcomes from what you described would be

1. no call
2. foul on B2, and you would have to determine if A2 had shot the ball or not when the foul occurred.

I would say the majority of the times this is a no call unless the contact is of the "we can't pass on that variety", but since both players are moving towards each other some spillage is expected.

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:eek:

I'm assuming this is sarcasm, but when these types of comments come up I let the coach know that it's not my fault his kids can't hit easy layups. They usually don't bring this up again.

So you don't call fouls because another player should have made a lay-up?

That's on way of interpreting what I said, or the other way is I don't call fouls because another player missed a layup.

you are missing the point from the OP … he asked if you pass on the foul SINCE they are going to get an easy layup

My post interpreted is … "DONT PASS ON A FOUL BECAUSE YOU THINK THE TEAM SHOULD GET AN EASY SCORE AND YOU DONT WANNA TAKE THAT AWAY!" they just may miss it and then you put yourself in a pickle

I thought you called fouls based on contact, advantage/disadvantage, hindering normal actions, and such things. Adding in that a player should have made an easy lay-up is new to me.

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.

His scenario wasn't very cut and dry and i outlined the 2 possible outcomes, that without seeing the extent of the contact you cannot say either or.

There are many officials that see a 150lb. guard fly into a 230lb. forward and call a foul on the bigger player simply because the contact "appeared" severe due to the size discrepancy. To comment that what is described in a rather vague sense that either one or the other may occur is wrong.

The thought process is correct that we don't negate a foul simply because a team *may* score and easy bucket, but we also know in these circumstances the level of contact and RSBQ is skewed towards the offensive team. And has been pointed out earlier the contact on a ball handler versus any other player has different standards for acceptable contact.

So the answer is not black or white in this case. If the question didn't have a hypothetical scenario then your answer is 100% correct, however the scenario is vague as to how do we judge contact in a hypothetical without specifying something like "the contact was very obvious and a foul". I covered the 2 scenarios, and I don't think I said that I would pass on a foul simply because of an easy layup. I commented on my response to a very common cause and effect scenario that coaches try and stick us with.

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.

Feel free to point anywhere in this thread where someone made that statement.

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.

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.

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.

Although I addressed it with sarcasm and in jest, this was my point to begin with! The OP asked if he should have passed or not. My joke was tell me what you are going to say when the coach is frustrated that his kid misses the layup and he knows you passed on a foul to give it to him. Don't pass on the foul away from the ball because you THINK a player has an easy bucket. I would rather say "Coach I had to get that sorry about taking away maybe an easy 2" than have to defend "Coach I passed on that foul because you had an easy 2 sorry your kid missed it".

Too much talking. "It didn't affect the pass." "It didn't affect the play." Get out of Dodge.

I would either hold my whistle until A2 begins upward motion then call a common foul or call an intentional right away. I don't think team A could be disappointed getting two shots and the ball despite losing a chance at an easy layup.

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 wouldn't say all that. If I should have called and didn't I say "I kicked it" it was a no-call then I say what I said earlier "don't be mad at me because your kid can't make a layup".

If I do call it and he welps then I say "To obvious to let go".

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 :rolleyes:

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

Isn't that a big part of judging advantage/disadvantage?

Let's say dribbler A-1 is driving to the basket from the top of the key, with defender B-2 bellying up to A-1, making contact all the way. A-1 is playing through the contact, despite B-2's blocking. Wouldn't it be punishing Team A by blowing the whistle too soon (before the shot, not seeing the play through), instead of holding your whistle until the release?

That's not exactly what I meant, but to your point, If the player is playing through contact and the contact is marginal, you could make an argument that RSBQ was not affected. With what you describe, I'm not waiting for a call like that. Especially with the new hand check rules, when the player takes the first dribble to the basket and the defender causes illegal contact with the ball handler, I have a whistle when the foul occurs.

Sometimes the A coach would rather have the foul on B-2 than the (potential) points.

Yes, it's all part of the art of officiating.

well i never said anything about waiting to see if the layup misses or not, just simply would you have the play go on or call a foul.

well since A1 is already up in the air, he can actually do what normal players do throw the ball up for a shooting foul, but sometimes you can't gauge if there will be contact or not if B1 jumps from further away and you aren't guaranteed the refs will call it, since sometimes the refs only calls after looking at how the shot went, so if there's an open A2 under the basket it would be safer to pass it before impact, intentional foul or not, there's also no guarantee, in the final minutes these calls can change the outcome of a game.

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:

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.

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.

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

x2

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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)

"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.

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 :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.