[teejers1]

I understand the point and I agree this stuff can be subjective and difficult to apply consistently. But here's an analogy to why enforcing things to the letter of the law can mess things up, and how an "unwritten mental model" works better. Highway patrol could, per the letter of the law, pull over 95% of the drivers and we would never get anywhere on the freeway. So they don't. They apply their own mental model within a larger framework and a common goal of keeping the roads safe. Their definition of ticky tack is the minivan that is going 68 in a 65 in the middle of the day. That's a no call. They might pull over a car that's swerving at midnight and going 68 in a 65. That's different. And it makes sense. Similar judgement can be applied in basketball. If it doesn't effect the play, and there's no obvious call, let it go. Why ring up Brink twice 15 feet from the basket when the play hasn't been affected and no advantage was created? It's not consistent, because players do that stuff all the time. Just let it go all the time. If she reaches and knocks the ball away, it's a different situation. She's created an advantage. So, if she did hit the arm as she knocked the ball away, then call the foul. 

Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.

I have much less sympathy for the fouler when he or she is doing something that is not smart . . . like guarding an opposing big in his/her jersey 20+ feet from the hoop.  You say "what a stupid whistle."  Yeah, I can see that.  However, my first reaction is:  what a stupid decision in the first instance - why even invite a ref to have a "look at me" moment in that situation?  Thus, while I generally agree with the notion of no harm, no foul so let it go, I actually think there might be some net benefit to having close calls in ridiculous places being made - it will discourage defenders from putting themselves in ridiculous places in the future.

P.S. Boston guarding Prechtel tightly there made some sense because Big Red could have easily knocked down a trey from there. OTOH, Boston was overly agreessive, imo, (arm reaches/hacks) when Prechtel was looking to pass the ball further out. Again, not the best decision.

[teejers1]

I understand the point and I agree this stuff can be subjective and difficult to apply consistently. But here's an analogy to why enforcing things to the letter of the law can mess things up, and how an "unwritten mental model" works better. Highway patrol could, per the letter of the law, pull over 95% of the drivers and we would never get anywhere on the freeway. So they don't. They apply their own mental model within a larger framework and a common goal of keeping the roads safe. Their definition of ticky tack is the minivan that is going 68 in a 65 in the middle of the day. That's a no call. They might pull over a car that's swerving at midnight and going 68 in a 65. That's different. And it makes sense. Similar judgement can be applied in basketball. If it doesn't effect the play, and there's no obvious call, let it go. Why ring up Brink twice 15 feet from the basket when the play hasn't been affected and no advantage was created? It's not consistent, because players do that stuff all the time. Just let it go all the time. If she reaches and knocks the ball away, it's a different situation. She's created an advantage. So, if she did hit the arm as she knocked the ball away, then call the foul. 

Just like Brink's 5th foul vs. Oregon, you can say "what a stupid foul". My take is more, "what a stupid whistle". Seriously. Looked like pretty good D to me with little contact if any and no advantage was created. But the official decides it's a "me time" moment and somehow decides a foul should be called. At the time, it didn't seem like much. Sure turned out to be game-altering whistle though.

I have much less sympathy for the fouler when he or she is doing something that is not smart . . . like guarding an opposing big in his/her jersey 20+ feet from the hoop.  You say "what a stupid whistle."  Yeah, I can see that.  However, my first reaction is:  what a stupid decision in the first instance - why even invite a ref to have a "look at me" moment in that situation?  Thus, while I generally agree with the notion of no harm, no foul so let it go, I actually think there might be some net benefit to having close calls in ridiculous places being made - it will discourage defenders from putting themselves in ridiculous places in the future.

P.S. Boston guarding Prechtel tightly there made some sense because Big Red could have easily knocked down a trey from there. OTOH, Boston was overly agreessive, imo, (arm reaches/hacks) when Prechtel was looking to pass the ball further out. Again, not the best decision.