Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game?

just another ref

With regard to a patient whistle, invariably the idea of waiting to see if the shot is good or not comes up. This, to me is not something that should ever happen. The contact on the shot must be judged on its own merit and the result is what it is. I am much more likely to hold the whistle for a player about to beat his man off the dribble. Defender is late with a bump or a grab. If the dribbler comes out clean and has a layup, let it go.

tref

just another ref wrote
With regard to a patient whistle, invariably the idea of waiting to see if the shot is good or not comes up. This, to me is not something that should ever happen.

There's gonna be some cheap And1s 😮

Adam

tref wrote
There's gonna be some cheap And1s :eek:

I don't wait to see if the shot went in, I look to see if the shot is made more difficult.

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
With regard to a patient whistle, invariably the idea of waiting to see if the shot is good or not comes up. This, to me is not something that should ever happen. The contact on the shot must be judged on its own merit and the result is what it is.

I agree if you are only waiting on the shot to be complete, but the reality is you sometimes do not know if there is really an affect of the contact until you see what happens with that shot. The best example is a jump shot there very little contact and affect the trajectory of a shot, you might not know until you see how short the shot falls or not. I know many that wait to see if the ball was lost, a violation was committed before we call a foul in favor of a ball handler, so why would we exclude what happens on a shot?

Peace

Tio

Let's be clear... fouls are fouls. A patient whistle helps you see and process the entire play. Sometimes we have marginal contact where a no call is the right call for the game.

I would caution you against using absolutes on these terms. On some plays you may need a faster whistle tempo than others. Whistle tempo needs to patient, yet not indecisive. Keep in mind that you also "tell a story" with your whistle tempo... typically we pregame to have secondar tempo on plays outside your primary. If you are quick on plays in your secondary it can cause interesting crew dynamics. Just some food for thought.

fiasco wrote
Was talking to some reffing buddies of mine who have attended several camps over the last few years. These two concepts seem to be the most common concepts they bring home from the college camps they go to.

We were talking about whether these two concepts are, overall, making the game of basketball more physical and making it hard for players to adjust to the way the game is called.

Personally, I'm torn. I understand the concept of trying to see the whole play through before calling a foul in order to determine whether or not the contact had an impact on the play, but I think that also opens up a lot of grey area. A player has the right to shoot the ball without being illegally contacted by his opponent. If he plays through that contact and happens to make the shot, the rules say he should be rewarded for doing that, not penalized by having an official swallow the whistle.

I think perhaps it also makes it difficult for players to understand the way the game is being called. If A1 gets B1 on the arm, but B1 makes the shot, and then on the other end of the floor, there is similar contact, but A1 misses and there's a foul, it really seems like A1 is being allowed to play more physical.

I dunno. This is all just a bunch of jumbled up thoughts in my head. I'm certainly not saying it has to be one way or the other. And I actually may have the concepts completely wrong. I haven't made it to a college camp yet. This is just based on several chats with my reffing buddies who have made it there.

Thoughts?

Raymond

Tio wrote
Let's be clear... fouls are fouls. A patient whistle helps you see and process the entire play. Sometimes we have marginal contact where a no call is the right call for the game.

I would caution you against using absolutes on these terms. On some plays you may need a faster whistle tempo than others. Whistle tempo needs to patient, yet not indecisive. Keep in mind that you also "tell a story" with your whistle tempo... typically we pregame to have secondar tempo on plays outside your primary. If you are quick on plays in your secondary it can cause interesting crew dynamics. Just some food for thought.

Been hanging around Al Battista?

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
I agree if you are only waiting on the shot to be complete, but the reality is you sometimes do not know if there is really an affect of the contact until you see what happens with that shot. The best example is a jump shot there very little contact and affect the trajectory of a shot, you might not know until you see how short the shot falls or not. I know many that wait to see if the ball was lost, a violation was committed before we call a foul in favor of a ball handler, so why would we exclude what happens on a shot?

Peace

There is no way to ever truly know the effect of the contact on the shot.
Contact on the arm of the shooter may actually cause a shot to go in that would have otherwise missed. You just have to use your best judgment at the time and go with it. Some things are obvious. A player dunking can usually absorb more contact without disadvantage than one shooting a 3.

fiasco

tref wrote
Why do you have to be a "hot shot" because you're investing in your career?

At least they are bringing the info home, afterall, they could just hoard it to themselves.

You don't. Your inferring from my post that this was the only thing that makes me think he's a "hot shot." It's not.

JRutledge wrote
So if someone goes to camps and is actively getting told what they can improve on, they are a "hot shot?"

Same goes for you too.

bainsey

I've seen the most respected officials in our area hold their whistle on a shot, the ball bounces on the rim once, twice, thrice, wait for it, and drops off. Tweet. It certainly has its influence when others do it that way.

Rich

bainsey wrote
I've seen the most respected officials in our area hold their whistle on a shot, the ball bounces on the rim once, twice, thrice, wait for it, and drops off. Tweet. It certainly has its influence when others do it that way.

That's just terrible officiating.

26 Year Gap

bainsey wrote
I've seen the most respected officials in our area hold their whistle on a shot, the ball bounces on the rim once, twice, thrice, wait for it, and drops off. Tweet. It certainly has its influence when others do it that way.

Like the guy in the Gardiner video?😉

JRutledge

fiasco wrote
Same goes for you too.

Then clarify your position. It seems like you are the one irritated, so explain what you mean? Not everyone that goes to a college camp I would even listen to in the first place. There is after all a reason they are going to the camp. It does not make them an instructor or clinician in your local area. I just was reading what you said and said was irritating, so what did we not understand?

peace

DRJ1960

RichMSN wrote
That's just terrible officiating.

It happens... much more than I think it should.

bob jenkins

fiasco wrote
And I actually may have the concepts completely wrong.

I'd say that is the case (and it might also be for those "hot shots" you mentioned).

JRutledge

just another ref wrote
There is no way to ever truly know the effect of the contact on the shot.
Contact on the arm of the shooter may actually cause a shot to go in that would have otherwise missed. You just have to use your best judgment at the time and go with it. Some things are obvious. A player dunking can usually absorb more contact without disadvantage than one shooting a 3.

Well that is why you can wait to see what the ball did, it does not mean the shot is the only part that must be the factor for a foul to be called. I think people overreact when people say "Wait until the shot is completed" because it is clear that at the college ranks they have "and 1s" often. It is also clear they call more fouls at that level then many do at the HS level. It is not unusual to see a college game where both teams are in the two-shot bonus and we have 8 minutes less and if you called 40 fouls or more in a high school game people would think we called too much.

Peace

Scrapper1

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread, so I'm going to just add my two cents to a couple of other people's excellent comments.

JRutledge wrote
No it is not when you understand the rules that are in place.

I agree with this 100%. BY RULE, contact that does not hinder a player from performing normal movements is NOT a foul. That's specifically written in the rules. The patient whistle often (not always, but often) gives you an extra half-second to determine if that little bump gave either player an advantage not intended by rule.

AllPurposeGamer wrote
I think there are officials that take the concept too far...and assume since the shooter made a shot, he was not disadvantaged.

I agree with this 100%. For a few years, everybody at camp was talking about not giving the "cheap and-1". And what they were really saying was "don't give and-1s". This led to a lot of officials who think the only reason to call a foul during a try is because the shot missed. But as APG implies, a try can be made much more difficult by a defender's contact and that's a foul -- even if the try is subsequently successful.

rockyroad wrote
just understand that the level of contact needed to impact a play is considerably less in HS games than it is in NCAA games.

I agree with this 100%. If the contact impacts the play, then it's a foul. But a small bump that causes a freshman girl to travel will not even be felt by a college senior on his way to dunking the ball. One is a foul, one is not. A patient whistle allows you to determine which one is NOT the foul.

VaTerp

rockyroad wrote
You really need to understand that those concepts are mainly applied to NCAA games, and are not necessarily NFHS principles. I don't disagree with using them in NFHS games...just understand that the level of contact needed to impact a play is considerably less in HS games than it is in NCAA games. Maybe in some of the 6A/7A games where there are a number of D-1 and D-2 caliber players on the court, but most HS games can not and should not be called like an NCAA game.

So the principles are sound and valid...how we apply those principle may not be.

Exactly.

The suggestion that these concepts are "ruining the game" is beyond silly to me. They are good concepts and the way games on all levels should be officiated IMO. But you also must recognize that the level of contact needed to impact a play differs based on the relative skill level, strength, and body control at various levels.

What really ruins games, at least for me, is officials that constantly have whistles on marginal contact that does not create an advantage. Not only does it ruin the flow of the game, it also does a disservice to player development as kids come to expect to be bailed out by a whistle rather than learn how to play through marginal contact that inevitably occurs as they move up to higher levels of play.

dsqrddgd909

Fascinating thread.

Couple of thoughts from a newer official who refs mostly girls/boys JV.

1. Our state association administrator for basketball has clearly stated that the #1 complaint she hears is too FEW fouls are being called. She does not believe that foul calls are game interrupters, in fact she dislikes the term a great deal. She believes that the more contact we pass on, particularly early in a game, the greater chance of rough play later.

2. I played HS ball about a jillion years ago. The game is substantially rougher in two areas: post play and boxing out.

zm1283

dsqrddgd909 wrote
Fascinating thread.

Couple of thoughts from a newer official who refs mostly girls/boys JV.

1. Our state association administrator for basketball has clearly stated that the #1 complaint she hears is too FEW fouls are being called. She does not believe that foul calls are game interrupters, in fact she dislikes the term a great deal. She believes that the more contact we pass on, particularly early in a game, the greater chance of rough play later.

2. I played HS ball about a jillion years ago. The game is substantially rougher in two areas: post play and boxing out.

We get told about every season that when coaches complain about fouls, they complain that not enough are called and never that too many are called.

Of course they all think that not enough are called on the OTHER team. Funny how that works.

tref

VaTerp wrote
The suggestion that these concepts are "ruining the game" is beyond silly to me. They are good concepts and the way games on all levels should be officiated IMO. But you also must recognize that the level of contact needed to impact a play differs based on the relative skill level, strength, and body control at various levels.

Same holds true for male vs female games. Had a JUCO coach begging for a ticky tack, he told me "that's a foul!" I said you are absolutely correct... if this were a 8th grade girls game. All he could do was laugh & we were good the rest of the night. A 6'8" is not disadvantaged by the same contact that a 5'6" is.

« Previous Page Next Page »