Can Refs Help Improve Youth Play (Videos)

[JRutledge]

Play #1: Charge

Play #2: Nothing. I see a player reach around for the ball, but nothing that seems to affect the dribbler and his RSBQ at all.

Play #3: I see what could be a foul, but I see why it was not called. The dribbler tried to do something he was not in control to do and seemed to fall. I see the defender extend his arms, but I am not convinced he had anything to do with the control of the dribbler.

Play #4: I have a foul on the second kid after the spin.

Play #5: I do not have a foul on this play. A lot of grabbing for the ball.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1: Charge

Play #2: Nothing. I see a player reach around for the ball, but nothing that seems to affect the dribbler and his RSBQ at all.

Play #3: I see what could be a foul, but I see why it was not called. The dribbler tried to do something he was not in control to do and seemed to fall. I see the defender extend his arms, but I am not convinced he had anything to do with the control of the dribbler.

Play #4: I have a foul on the second kid after the spin.

Play #5: I do not have a foul on this play. A lot of grabbing for the ball.

Peace

Your answers would match mine most closely.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Play #1: Charge

Play #2: Nothing. I see a player reach around for the ball, but nothing that seems to affect the dribbler and his RSBQ at all.

Play #3: I see what could be a foul, but I see why it was not called. The dribbler tried to do something he was not in control to do and seemed to fall. I see the defender extend his arms, but I am not convinced he had anything to do with the control of the dribbler.

Play #4: I have a foul on the second kid after the spin.

Play #5: I do not have a foul on this play. A lot of grabbing for the ball.

Peace

I also agree with these.

On play 5, first, the camera angle and the official's angle are almost 180* different -- and that can make a lot of difference in what the official sees (And, I'm not sure how the play developed, but I would say the official was out of position). Second, while there was some contact with the Red arm, it was all / mostly after Black had placed his hand on the ball and was because Red was pulling away. Especially since Red kept the ball, I'm passing on any foul here.

[Pantherdreams]

I think what is causing you conflict is that you are teaching your kids to attempt to play well with feet and avoid creating illegal contact of any kind. This is good, but the problem is that the rules don't say illegal contact automatically equals foul. So while our kids defend properly you seem to expect a call everytime this doesn't happen. If it did any time anyone bumped or ran into each other or on every rebound there would be fouls called.

Illegal contact must be judged to be a foul or incidental.

Without going into all the criteria simply put then the 4 automatics others have shared with you the two criteria for determining that a foul are:

1) Does it create a clear an immediate advantage for the player commiting illegal contact or does it create a clear and immediate disadvantage for the player being contacted?

2) Is the contact excessive or leading to rough play?

If the official doesn't determine the contact to have met either of these criteria it is ruled incidental contact and play continues.

Some teams play like you no hands ever, trying to play without illegal contact. Others play at the edge of the rules risking fouls gambling that by playing a more physical game that the risk will outweigh the rewards. In most of the cases you sited what I'm watching is very subjective in terms of whether the player is gaining a clear and immediate advantage or disadvantage from the contact. Some officials might say they are impeded or its leading to rough play, but many will see players playing through it, or making bad decisions or being out of control anyway so determine that the contact is not creating a problem.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

I think what is causing you conflict is that you are teaching your kids to attempt to play well with feet and avoid creating illegal contact of any kind. This is good, but the problem is that the rules don't say illegal contact automatically equals foul. So while our kids defend properly you seem to expect a call everytime this doesn't happen. If it did any time anyone bumped or ran into each other or on every rebound there would be fouls called.

Illegal contact must be judged to be a foul or incidental.

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

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by APG

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.