How late is too late??

[howie719]

One thing that has helped me, is to see the PLAY on the floor as a moving picture rather than a series of still shots. Late whistles are a great tool, especially when getting/giving help from/to another official on the floor. Allowing the play to develop and letting players play through contact is part of the game. The higher the level you do the more excepted this is among players, coaches, and officials.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Does anyone have any "rule of thumb" as to when is it really too late to come in with a foul call? 2 steps? 2 seconds?

Like pornography or pictures of Chuck, I think you know it when you see it.

Being "too late" is, IMO, dependent on the game so far - what level is the play, how fast are the players, etc.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Like pornography or pictures of Chuck

I hope to never see these these two things in the same sentence again.

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

I think you know it when you see it.

I think you're probably right, but I just wondered if anyone else had any helpful tidbits. After all, we have correctable error situations that, by rule, might be corrected several minutes later, so there is obviously some precedence in coming in late to get something right. Perhaps a change of possession, score, or some other violation would make it too late, wouldn't you think?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

After all, we have correctable error situations that, by rule, might be corrected several minutes later, so there is obviously some precedence in coming in late to get something right. Perhaps a change of possession, score, or some other violation would make it too late, wouldn't you think?

It's hard to find a consensus on the question of how late is too late, I think, because it's a feel thing. There is a constancy of action and a pervasive immediacy to the game of basketball. It's all about what's happening right now. What went before is forgotten nearly as soon as it happens. That makes it feel wrong to come with a late whistle (as opposed to a patient whistle).

We've had many a discussion about the correctable error thing and though we usually come to an understanding about the correct application of the rule, I can't think of any rule that provokes such negative emotion. It so often just feels wrong to apply the proper correctable "fix." And I think a lot of that has to do with violating that sense of immediacy.

I would agree that "a change of possession, score, or some other violation" make good delimiters to help determine when a call is too late. But I think that there are much more frequent, and more subtle, delimiters as well. For instance, a simple pass in a way begins a whole new play. The locus of activity has shifted and a late whistle on the play preceeding the pass injects a jarring dissonance as everybody has to mentally rewind back to what happened. Other examples come to mind as well.

It's just difficult to make a blanket statement about how late is too late when you really have to be there to feel for yourself when it's too late.

[Texas Aggie]

I had a foul call last year, I think, where the contact knocked the dribbler off balance, and then finally, he fell to the ground -- probably 2 seconds after the contact. Had he quickly regained his balance, I would have had nothing.

The problem that this gets into is if the bench is up screaming for a foul right after the contact and you wait a second or two, it looks like you are being talked into the call. I care more about correctness than appearances, but keep in mind, you need to be prepared to explain this to the coaches.

I think in a case like your's just eat it and tell the coach, "coach, I missed it, OK, let's play ball" if he asks or complains. Honestly, maybe its because I'm getting older or am more and more familiar to coaches, but I said something like that 3 times this year and never heard another word about it.

Just don't get in the habit of missing it!

[sj]

Maybe another way of describing this kind of deal would be to say that the bump by A1 wasn't a foul at the time of the bump. But it BECAME a foul at the moment in time when the ball was being stolen and he was still in the process of recovering. Therefore if we blow the whistle at that point then it would not be a "late" whistle.

I used the word late just to make it easy to talk about but it's always been fanboy terminology to me. After all no one ever wants to be late. Patient is a good description.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by sj

Maybe another way of describing this kind of deal would be to say that the bump by A1 wasn't a foul at the time of the bump. But it BECAME a foul at the moment in time when the ball was being stolen and he was still in the process of recovering.

This seems dangerous to me. I think I'd rather have a patient, or late, whistle than a no-foul that turns into a foul after something else happens.

[sj]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

This seems dangerous to me. I think I'd rather have a patient, or late, whistle than a no-foul that turns into a foul after something else happens.

I think we're in agreement. But if I am letting the bump go in and of itself and have nothing as no disadvantage was created until the steal was taking place. But it could be just semantics and not even worth mentioning.

[Adam]

SJ, by rule, your wording might be right. But I found it's much easier to come back with, "Yeah, it was late, but it was the right call." Higher level coaches (most HS varsity and some JV coaches, in my experience) migh be ok if you say something like, "I was waiting to see the whole play."
Your resposne above would be okay for a beer-aided debate after the game, but it's a bit too long for game time.

[sj]

Agreed. This is discussion board stuff. You have to be brief come game time.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

It's hard to find a consensus on the question of how late is too late, I think, because it's a feel thing. There is a constancy of action and a pervasive immediacy to the game of basketball. It's all about what's happening right now. What went before is forgotten nearly as soon as it happens. That makes it feel wrong to come with a late whistle (as opposed to a patient whistle).

We've had many a discussion about the correctable error thing and though we usually come to an understanding about the correct application of the rule, I can't think of any rule that provokes such negative emotion. It so often just feels wrong to apply the proper correctable "fix." And I think a lot of that has to do with violating that sense of immediacy.

I would agree that "a change of possession, score, or some other violation" make good delimiters to help determine when a call is too late. But I think that there are much more frequent, and more subtle, delimiters as well. For instance, a simple pass in a way begins a whole new play. The locus of activity has shifted and a late whistle on the play preceeding the pass injects a jarring dissonance as everybody has to mentally rewind back to what happened. Other examples come to mind as well.

It's just difficult to make a blanket statement about how late is too late when you really have to be there to feel for yourself when it's too late.

Ok, I get it. I'll put you down for two steps.

Hmm...you know what, we haven't had a poll in quite a while...

[Jimgolf]

In your judgment, the contact was incidental. Therefore, no foul.

The player did not have the skill to play through incidental contact. You can't call the game differently for less skilled players.

The fact that the player lost the ball doesn't mean that you made a bad no-call.

[Adam]

I disagree, somewhat, I think.
When players are less skilled, "illegal" contact is more likely to impede their ability to play the game. You can legitimately call fouls in this scenario that you wouldn't call with higher level players.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

In your judgment, the contact was incidental. Therefore, no foul.

The player did not have the skill to play through incidental contact. You can't call the game differently for less skilled players.

The fact that the player lost the ball doesn't mean that you made a bad no-call.

Disagree completely. If the contact makes a player lose the ball, there is nowayinhell that could ever be called "incidental" contact. Incidental contact means that the contact doesn't give one player an advantage over another. If you contact an opponent and make them cough up the ball, you sureashell are gaining an advantage.

Skills levels have absolutely nothing to do with the call either. Advantage/disadvantage does. You call what actually happens; not what you think should happen.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

In your judgment, the contact was incidental. Therefore, no foul.

The player did not have the skill to play through incidental contact.

If he couldn't play through it, then it wasn't really incidental. It had a disadvantageous effect on the player.

You can't call the game differently for less skilled players.

The less skilled the players are, the more likely it is that slight contact (which would be incidental at higher levels) will cause an illegal disadvantage. So you officiate with the same philosophy (advantage/disadvantage), while mindful of the fact that it will be much easier to put the players at a disadvantage.