Holding the whistle on a drive
 

I've been quiet in this forum this season, as I had leg surgery in September, and I'm inactive this year. Still attending some games, and I'd like some thoughts:

Am I the only one who doesn't like blowing the whistle for a common foul while a player is driving? I prefer to see if he can play through the contact, and if the contact remains upon the release, then call the foul.

To me, it's putting the ball-handler at a disadvantage by not having a patient whistle. If his RSBQ is compromised to the point where he can no longer effectively drive, then I believe a common foul is necessary, but other than that, I say "see it through."

And yet, I see others whistling during the drive, getting the common foul. Thoughts on this?

Their idiots, you are great...Im going with your patient whistle.

It's a balancing act between three things:

• is RSBQ affected?
• automatic fouls in the rulebook (two hands, extended arm bar, et al)
• "get the first foul"

5 years ago, RSBQ was the main consideration, but now the Powers That Be are putting much more emphasis the later two points, and we as officials have been adjusting accordingly.

This made me chuckle. Your spelling while calling other people idiots. hmm.

I need to see the play and how far out player is etc. Time of game etc. As i've said many times, there's no legitimate reason for a player to have a hand or forearm on a dribbler. It's there to aggravate or hold. If the kid looks like he's got an open layup i'll try to layoff depending on what it looks like.

Again, they've made it pretty clear they want the whistle blown. If you blow it early in the game on some of these you find out, for the most part, that you don't have to blow it later in the game.

I don't see it as a disadvantage to the dribbler or his team really. It's a foul being called on that player. Goes toward team foul count. And most importantly, tends to stop it from happening rest of game.

There's a time and place to let it play out but, just as a general proposition…"don't call common fouls simply because the player is driving"…I don't agree.

I'm with you and firmly believe in being patient. If you blow the whistle too early, you take a potential "and one" from the offense. Let them play it through and then decide on whether a foul call is needed. Late and correct is better than early and wrong. I'm intentionally slow/late on some of my calls in order to be patient and get it right. See the whole play.

I highlighted your error above. I see you struggle too! :)

"Your" is correct in BigCat's sentence fragment.

I do struggle, i do make errors, and I will make more....BUT…that wasn't one of them. Now i'm really chuckling. take care.

I am not going to "see it through" when the foul that took place prevents the player to do what they were trying to do. I think you call the foul when RSBQ is clearly influenced or the "automatics" take place. Because if you wait and there was clearly a foul before, the play still might not be completed. I would rather call the foul when it takes place.

Peace

I know my grammar sucks what did I misspell?

Should of used "they are idiots" instead of "their idiots" unless you are trying to say they are someone else's idiots and not yours


https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Gv0H-vPoDc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OK folks, break out your Strunk and White or Mavis Beacon and get busy but do it somewhere else. :)

As much as a grammar Nazi I can be, even I think this is getting out of hand.

Any other thoughts on my question?

Times and philosophies change. The powers-that-be generally want more fouls called early rather than waiting on these drives.

I see what you were doing. Not putting together a full sentence. I thought you were saying "You are (you're) spelling while calling people idiots".

I missed what you were trying to say.