|
Could be just me, but I don't understand the concept of choosing to make - or not make - the call based on whether the offending player is close to getting a rebound, primarily because of the mechanics involved. (I understand differing opinions on advantage / no advantage or big deal / not a big deal, but this situation has a mechanics twist.)
If you're going to call it, shouldn't you be making the signal for a delayed call? If so, you would have the signal when you notice the violation. This could be 2, 5, or 8 seconds before you actually blow the whistle.
If you're waiting to judge if the offending player is close to a rebound, then you must not be using the delayed signal. In that case, you would make no signal and then blow the whistle after you watch to see who is near the rebound. (You wouldn't signal for a delayed call and then, after seeing the offending player is not near the rebound, just put you're hand down as if nothing happened later, would you?)
I confess, I'm a rookie here, so the whole mechanics part of this issue may not be a big deal. However, I would think that using a delay signal and calling nothing or not using the delay signal and then calling something could alter the confidence level some coaches (or other officials) have in you. For example, how confident would you be if every time an official calls a foul he/she does so with an open hand? Wouldn't you wonder if this official was competent in other areas?
|