The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Made Shot, No Foul. Missed Shot, Foul. (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100056-made-shot-no-foul-missed-shot-foul.html)

Freddy Fri Aug 28, 2015 01:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 966235)
If that's really what they said, you need to find new camps.

My guess, however, is that they really said:

Whereas Refereeing 101 says "if you see <s>illegal</s> contact, its a foul," Refeering 201 says something like "if you see contact, depending on the severity of the contact and the effect on the player <s>outcome of the play</s>, it may or may not be illegal contact and thus a foul."
If this comment had a "Like" button I would click on it.

deecee Fri Aug 28, 2015 02:20pm
I hate it when I would hear an evaluator says that you shouldn't have an 'and 1' or that if the shot goes in then there is no foul. Stupid way of thinking that has more holes than swiss cheese. If you feel a foul should be called then call it. There is allowances in the rules for what happens when there is a foul on a shot and the ball goes in. There is no allowances for there cannot be a foul *if* the ball goes in.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Geof Fri Aug 28, 2015 03:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 966237)
Basketball use of advantage-disadvantage is closer to soccer's concept of trifling than it is the soccer concept of advantage.

In soccer, a trifling foul is one that does not have a significant impact and can be fairly ignored. In basketball, just as in soccer, the amount of contact that can fairly be ignored as not having a significant impact is dependent on the level of play.

In soccer, advantage is not about whether the attacker maintained an advantage, but whether the team of the victim of the foul is better off continuing to play than having the foul punished.
Your points are well taken. The parallels I was drawing in my head weren't so parallel after all.

Raymond Fri Aug 28, 2015 04:38pm
I just hate a late whistle on an And-1. I've seen officials blowing after the ball is already going through the hoop.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

so cal lurker Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee (Post 966242)
I hate it when I would hear an evaluator says that you shouldn't have an 'and 1' or that if the shot goes in then there is no foul. Stupid way of thinking that has more holes than swiss cheese. If you feel a foul should be called then call it. There is allowances in the rules for what happens when there is a foul on a shot and the ball goes in. There is no allowances for there cannot be a foul *if* the ball goes in.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
How can you say that. If you watch high level college games and NBA games, you'll see that the top guys never call a foul if the ball goes in and there really is no such thing as three point play from inside the arc:eek: . . . oh, wait . . . they happen all the time every game . . . never mind . . .

Rich Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 966244)
I just hate a late whistle on an And-1. I've seen officials blowing after the ball is already going through the hoop.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
I'll agree with this one. Unless a person is put into the bleachers, I'm not calling it if I waited that long -- and then I shouldn't have waited that long.

Camron Rust Mon Aug 31, 2015 01:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 966271)
I'll agree with this one. Unless a person is put into the bleachers, I'm not calling it if I waited that long -- and then I shouldn't have waited that long.
If that is their normal delay, but the shot happens to be that close the basket, I'm not so sure it is a problem. I'm not that slow, but if such an official is consistent with the timing of all of their other calls, I don't think there is a problem.

crosscountry55 Mon Aug 31, 2015 08:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 966271)
I'll agree with this one. Unless a person is put into the bleachers, I'm not calling it if I waited that long -- and then I shouldn't have waited that long.
+1. By the way, Rich, did you get the PM I sent you a while ago?

Not sure why but I feel compelled to add to this thread for some reason. I'm all about seeing the whole play, but there are some fouls that are just clobbers that are easy to call immediately. And if a skilled player manages to fight through it and score anyway, then all power to them.

The other type of foul where you get a few and-1s is mid- and long-range jumpers. Either the arm/elbow gets hit, or the airborne shooter gets interfered with and you blow the whistle to protect said shooter. In both cases you can't really wait to see if the basket goes in because the shot is in the air too long; by the time you see the result, your whistle would be too late to have any credibility.

CountTheBasket Tue Sep 01, 2015 09:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 966228)
Judging whether the contact created an advantage is everything. Whether or not the shot goes in is not a part of the equation, in my opinion.
I agree with this totally, I do however believe that we can look at the shot the offensive player got off for clues as to whether contact put them at a disadvantage. An offensive player who is bumped and then continues with a clean step and layup which just happens to miss doesn't automatically trigger a foul for me.

Along the same lines, I have come in with a late whistle on a jump shot when I don't "think" the player got hit but there was a possibility and then the shot ends up 5 feet short. (This only happened when I was out of position just this one time...)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45pm.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1