Quote:
Originally Posted by tref
IMO the timing of whistle is whats most important as the difference is only a second. We tend to pop too soon & interupt the game. I'm sure we've all had the play where there is contact on the drive & the player goes right thru it & scores with ease. Now we're giving cheap and1s or worse, interupting the game to administer do overs.
|
And imo you still don't understand the concept being discussed. You blow your whistle when a foul occurs. Period. If the contact didn't affect the play, it's incidental and you don't blow your whistle. The timing of your whistle depends on when you determine a foul should be called. Period!
Again, all a "patient whistle" is doing is determining whether a foul actually occurred on any particular play. And determining whether the foul was of the shooting variety or not does
NOT depend on the timing of the whistle either. There is no correlation at all between the two. Determining whether the foul was of the shooting variety or not is yet another different judgment to be made when calling the foul.
You judge whether a foul should be called on a play using advantage/disdavantage, incidental contact and other principles. You then have to make another
judgment as to what kind of foul it should be.
Methinks you don't really understand pro principles either. They ain't really different when it comes to a patient whistle. They use them the same way that people at the NFHS/NCAA levels do also. What you're describing is a problem with officials blowing their whistles
before they have had enough time to determine whether the contact was actually illegal or not. And that's an individual problem that needs to be pointed out to them so they can work on it.
You're needlessly making a fairly simple concept difficult imo.