perspective
 

I played and coached and "parented" until my youngest graduated High School. When I started officiating I was stunned at the difference in the way officials see the game. I found that the people "in charge" (ie the ones who write the checks) decide the often unwritten rules that govern the games. Understanding these interpretations make all the difference in the world as you watch officials work games. The reality is that I now call games in the same manner that infuriated me when I was a player, coach and parent. (Video #2 is a prime example of where I would scream "Where's the foul?" and today I wouldn't have a whistle).

Illegal contact is ALWAYS a foul...but all contact isn't illegal. Contact is either illegal or incidental.

That would be a very different game. Initiating contact simply isn't a foul and doesn't even determine who a foul is on. There are pretty clear rules on who can do what and it isn't about initiating contact. When a player does something illegal and there is contact, then there is a foul. There are many legal ways for contact to occur.

For the most part, the rules governing contact apply to the defender. We spend 95% of our time watching the DEFENDER. If there is contact sufficient for a foul, they must be legal, if not, foul on the defender regardless of who initiates the contact. If they're legal, then the foul is on the offense.

We may be dealing with semantics issue here.

But if a player violates the legal guarding position and cylinder rules and creates contact, that by definition would be illegal contact. We need to judge whether that illegal contact was incidental or impacts the play. Just as all touches are not fouls, the touching does violate the rules in regards to their cylinders.

As i said we may be parsing semantics here, I think we are advocating the same thing. If you break a rule in making contact that is illegal, if we judge that contact to be sufficient to warrant a foul we call it. Saying it wasn't illegal contact would indicate a rule/guideline was not violated. The action is either within the rules or without, fouls are determined based on rules and application of the Tower Principle. Deciding contact was incidental doesn't make the action within the rules, just acceptable based on our judgement of advantage disadvantage.

ie. Why they went to 4 automatics. These types of illegal contact were being based on as incidental, now the illegal action = foul automatically.

no, contact is illegal or incidental. Incidental contact is never illegal. They went to the four automatics because too many were ruling the contact incidental/legal.

Without looking at your videos I'll start out asking you what level of quality do expect for the level of basketball being played?

I can't answer what some random officials on video were thinking because I've never spoke to them.

I think we are just dealing with semantics here. Illegal = contrary to the rules.


Contact is judged as illegal based on rule and tower principle by us calling fouls, contact can violate the rules but be deemed incidental based on principles.

By definition of the word illegal, though the second an action is contrary to the statues/laws or contrary to rules and regulations it is illegal.

Splitting hairs at this point.

Ok, now I've watched the videos.

1) Whether this is a PC or Block, it is not something I would put under the banner of "what was he thinking!?", as if it was some egregious call.

2) If this were a newer official and I was observing his game, I would commend him for his patience in letting the play continue and not stopping the game with an unnecessary whistle.

And most definitely a training ground for coaches. ;)

And now I've seen 5 videos and all I see is a bunch of sloppy 7th grade basketball. Still haven't seen a play where I would say "OMG, he really missed that".

Coach, have any parents sent you any videos asking why you are running certain plays? Or showing how well their kid plays, but you are still not giving them enough playing time? I'm asking this seriously.

If I heard this extreme hyperbole from a coach after that play, I would cease answering any further questions from that coach the rest of the game, because he could no longer be trusted to have an honest conversation.

When I was coaching my children when they were under ten, I would try to talk to the officials before the game and say that it may be difficult for the defense to play without fouling, but it was very difficult for the offensive players to make plays when they were being fouled. Sometimes, I thought it helped, but most officials seemed to ignore my advice and not call many fouls.

When I am officiating HS varsity, I expect the players to be able to play through contact and they have to earn the "and-ones". When I am officiating players 9 and under, I try to call the fouls, but let a lot of the violations go unless they are really bad OR if the violation (e.g., travelling) enabled them to score a basket when they wouldn't have otherwise. 7th graders fall somewhere in the middle and they should be able to play through some contact. Similarly, on defense, it is OK to make some contact. You should permit some contact by the defense in practice. A foul is just a foul; it is not a sin.

Before the game, you could ask the officials if players are allowed to "hand-check" the dribbler.

Before a nine-yr-old game that I am going to call, I may tell the coaches that I plan to call the fouls, but not call the marginal violations. The reaction of the coaches is about 50-50. Some say thanks and others say that they need to learn the rules. I had one set of 9-yr-old coaches who wanted me to call the violations in the first game of the year. So, I did and the final score was something like 6-2, The 8-yr-old game which I had right before that one was 18-14 with not a lot of walking and carrying calls made. In the long run, I don't think it makes a difference. The kids will eventually learn to play through contact and play without committing violations very often. I just happen to think it is more fun when more points are scored.

(It is interesting officiating 9-yr-old girls games when so many of them play defense by standing next to the offensive player but don't get in the offensive players "bubble" even it they are in the paint.)

(RBSQ -> Rhythm, Balance, Speed and Quickness. If contact does not affect the ball handler's RBSQ, there isn't going to be a foul.)

"hey, he touched him"
 

Contact is not a foul unless it is judged to e illegal. In short, contact is illegal and should be dalled a foul if it "hinders normal defensive and offensive movements". The refs may see the exact same contact tat you see but view it differently. If your team is "playing through contact" refs may choose to let it go.

For reference, the following places in the rule book may help: 4-7, 4-18, 4-19, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26, 4-27, 4-37, 4-40, 4-45, and 10-6.

Refs are required to make quick judgements involving contact all game long and depending on your angle, focus, perspective, experience, bias, and other factors you may disagree. Complaining from coaches, players, parents isn't going to change what we call. The best thing you can do as a coach is teach your players to adjust to how the crew is calling the game.

I'd like to ask the OP a question.

Why would you want a foul called in that second video? Was your player at all disadvantaged by the contact (assuming there was any contact at all)? I would think, as a coach, you'd much rather have a defender out of position while your dribbler keeps going past him.

Not that I neccesarly disagree with the lack of a foul call, but many coaches would prefer having a player in foul trouble/possibly taken out of the game rather than the possible immediate advantage gained on the play.