Delaying the whistle question

[johnnyrao]

Last night I called a blocking foul on a drive by player A to the basket. The foul was clearly before the shot so I waved the shot off. A1 took a shot and scored a layup. I waved it off and gave Team A a throw-in. At half time one of my partners, a very experienced official, recommended to me that in this situation I hold my whistle until A1 takes the shot. If she makes it, as she did in case, ignore the contact and let A have their two points. If she misses it, call the foul. I agree with this principle and I think this is one thing that separates some officials from being good and being really good. I am not at the level yet where I can see this happen and hold the whistle but I will try. My question, however, is:

What if you ignore the intial contact and A1 misses the layup. You then blow the whistle. Since you know that the contact occurred before the shot how do you handle it, go ahead and shoot two free throws or call it a foul with no shot and give a throw-in? If you do this I am sure Team A's coach is not going to be happy. The coach is going to want free throws because it certainly will look like you are calling the foul on the shot. I forgot to ask this question to my partner so I would like your thoughts on how to handle this situation correctly.

[JugglingReferee]

I'm not a big fan of this practice.

You can't assign two shots, as the foul did not occur on a shooter. You either pass on the foul, or call it. I think it looks bad to "go back" and call the foul that happened before the shot. Perhaps in some cases, only a small amount of time exists between the two events, and your "delayed whistle" can be justified, but when that time difference is too great, you gotta pass on the foul once you've passed on it.

[Teigan]

I just usually do this, and I tend not to have a problem!
"Coach, I was gonna pass on that call, I decided that I could not, 2 shots"
I have not had a problem when I say this, coaches realize that I was going to suck on my whistle, and I decided not to. I think they will respect you more, because your giving the players a chance to play. While still not letting players gain advantages over the other.

[johnnyrao]

Originally posted by Teigan
I just usually do this, and I tend not to have a problem!
"Coach, I was gonna pass on that call, I decided that I could not, 2 shots"
I have not had a problem when I say this, coaches realize that I was going to suck on my whistle, and I decided not to. I think they will respect you more, because your giving the players a chance to play. While still not letting players gain advantages over the other.

I understand this, but my question about this call is that it was clearly prior to the shot so if you delay the whistle and she misses the shot, how do you wave off the shot and give a throw-in? If you award two shots you are penalizing the defending team and will probably hear it from the defending team's coach. By the way, last year I passed on a reaching in IUOH foul and A1 scored an easy layup. Coach of Team A said I missed the foul. I tried your method and in a polite conversation between us he told me he wanted everything called. Turned into a long night.

[Edited by johnnyrao on Feb 4th, 2006 at 09:00 AM]

[WinterWillie]

Originally posted by johnnyrao

By the way, last year I passed on a reaching in IUOH foul and A1 scored an easy layup. Coach of Team A said I missed the foul.

The calls missed most often by officials I've watched have been the illegal use of the hand and the hand check (A POE in NCAA Women's basketball this year). When it is called, 99% of the time the coach won't complain to the official but will say to his/her player, "I told you not to reach in."

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by WinterWillie

The calls missed most often by officials I've watched have been the illegal use of the hand and the hand check (A POE in NCAA Women's basketball this year). When it is called, 99% of the time the coach won't complain to the official but will say to his/her player, "I told you not to reach in."

Is reaching in a foul?

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
I'm not a big fan of this practice.

You can't assign two shots, as the foul did not occur on a shooter. You either pass on the foul, or call it. I think it looks bad to "go back" and call the foul that happened before the shot. Perhaps in some cases, only a small amount of time exists between the two events, and your "delayed whistle" can be justified, but when that time difference is too great, you gotta pass on the foul once you've passed on it.

Sound advice from JugglingReferee!

I would advise you to get a tape of the game and review this play. You might get a different look that will tell you how to make this call next time.

[johnnyrao]

Originally posted by johnny1784
[QUOTE
Is reaching in a foul?

No, I passed on an illegal use of the hands. But what the player did warranted that call because he reached across the dribblers body while the dribbler was driving to the basket and made contact on the forearm of the dribbler. I know "reaching in" is not in the rule book but coaches seem to understand that quick response rather than the long winded response I gave above, especially while play is going on.

[lmeadski]

This whole issue about holding the whistle is about timing the call. In your situation (I wish I could see it), it sounds as if it happend in this order: A1 goes to the hoop, gets fouled, your whistle, her shot, basket goes in. I don't see how you could use a delayed whistle on this play. Either you must call the foul when it occurs, or, no foul at all and let her continue the play. You already have given her a chance to complete her play by letting the initial foul go. Why would I wait to blow the whistle to see if she could finish the play? Doesn't this give way too much advantage/benefit of the doubt to A1? If she can't finish I am supposed to call a foul? If she makes the hoop, no foul? I could see delaying the whistle a wee bit if you are unclear if she is in the act of shooting, which, would give you the opportunity to award 2 FT vs a throw in. But, if the player is not in the act of shooting when she is fouled, why delay the whistle? The shot goes in: and one. They shot doesn't go in, 2 FT. What am I missing here?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by johnnyrao
Last night I called a blocking foul on a drive by player A to the basket. The foul was clearly before the shot so I waved the shot off. A1 took a shot and scored a layup. I waved it off and gave Team A a throw-in. At half time one of my partners, a very experienced official, recommended to me that in this situation I hold my whistle until A1 takes the shot. If she makes it, as she did in case, ignore the contact and let A have their two points. If she misses it, call the foul. I agree with this principle and I think this is one thing that separates some officials from being good and being really good. I am not at the level yet where I can see this happen and hold the whistle but I will try. My question, however, is:

What if you ignore the intial contact and A1 misses the layup. You then blow the whistle. Since you know that the contact occurred before the shot how do you handle it, go ahead and shoot two free throws or call it a foul with no shot and give a throw-in? If you do this I am sure Team A's coach is not going to be happy. The coach is going to want free throws because it certainly will look like you are calling the foul on the shot. I forgot to ask this question to my partner so I would like your thoughts on how to handle this situation correctly.

I simply wait until the shooter begins the habitual motion, then I call the foul. I'm not concerned with whether the shot is made or not. I see too many officials penalize an offensive player who has gained an advatnage. They negate that advantage but calling a handcheck before the motion started. I always tell young officials, if you're going to call the foul, wait until the motion begins. Don't unfairly penalize the offense who's in a more advantageous position.

[Adam]

If the defense commits illegal contact that could warrant a foul, you also have to determine whether there is an advantage gained. Consider this case:
A1 driving past B1 while B1 reaches in and hacks A1's non-dribbling elbow. A1 has B1 beat, and B1's contact had no effect on the advantage gained by A1. No foul. Let A1 have the layup. If they make it, you haven't taken away their advantage. If they miss, it isn't because of the contact before the shot.
It sounds like in the original play described here that there was no advantage gained by the contact.

I don't base my whistle on whether or not the shot goes in; it's whether or not the illegal contact results in a more difficult shot. I'm not comfortable with waiting to see if a shot goes in.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
If the defense commits illegal contact that could warrant a foul, you also have to determine whether there is an advantage gained. Consider this case:
A1 driving past B1 while B1 reaches in and hacks A1's non-dribbling elbow. A1 has B1 beat, and B1's contact had no effect on the advantage gained by A1. No foul. Let A1 have the layup. If they make it, you haven't taken away their advantage. If they miss, it isn't because of the contact before the shot.
It sounds like in the original play described here that there was no advantage gained by the contact.

I don't base my whistle on whether or not the shot goes in; it's whether or not the illegal contact results in a more difficult shot. I'm not comfortable with waiting to see if a shot goes in.

In my view, there is a dark side to what you are describing. It penalizes the defense. Over the years, I had to have players foul earlier and earlier in the drive to get calls on the floor.

[Adam]

How is it penalizing the defense? If the contact doesn't create an advantage, how is it a foul? Because the defense doesn't want to give up an easy layup? I don't think it penalizes defense. I think it's prevents rewarding poor defense.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

In my view, there is a dark side to what you are describing. It penalizes the defense. Over the years, I had to have players foul earlier and earlier in the drive to get calls on the floor.

You've exhibited some backward thinking in some of your posts but this may take the cake. The defense is committing an illegal act if they foul. How is it penalizing them if the contact is not called a foul? It's not different than bailing out an out of control player. I'm not going to make that call either. Advantage/disadvantage. I don't think you understand the term.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

You've exhibited some backward thinking in some of your posts but this may take the cake. The defense is committing an illegal act if they foul. How is it penalizing them if the contact is not called a foul? It's not different than bailing out an out of control player. I'm not going to make that call either. Advantage/disadvantage. I don't think you understand the term.

"You've exhibited some backward thinking in some of your posts"

In my view, if the defense wants to foul, that should be honored. It makes for a truer game.

[Edited by bob jenkins on Feb 5th, 2006 at 12:29 AM]