How late is too late??
 

Last night in a high school summer league I had a play that I don't think I've had happen before. At least the way it did. I'm trail. A1 is dribbling parallel to the free throw line when B1 comes up on him and bumps him a little. It throws him a bit off his path and sort of turns A1 around so he is going to start to dribble back the other way. At this point I had nothing. A1 had not been trying to go around B1 or anything. The bump caused him a little trouble but it just wasn't enough to call and it looked like he was recovering just fine. However B2 came streaking up the lane and stole the ball clean as A1 was turning back the other way. He went in and made an easy layup.

I would bet that 99% of refs would leave the bump, in and of itself, alone just like I did. But then it turned bad. In actuality A1 was still recovering from what little contact there was. He was going to be fine and I have no problem thinking that at that point I had done the right thing. But A1 was definitely still in a recovery process as the ball was stolen. When the ball was stolen I just froze knowing that I had a problem as I had not seen him coming. I didn't blow my whistle because by the time I got unfrozen B2 was long gone. I think I should have gone ahead and called it even though it would have looked "late."

So maybe a good question to ask here is, using fanboy terminology,.....how late is too late?

We all struggle with what contact is illegal, and what contact is incidental. Sometimes we have to wait a moment and determine the consequences of the contact.

The general rule is to penalize contact that negatively affects a player's speed, quickness, balance and/or rhythm. The contact in this case that "sort of turns A1 around so he is going to start to dribble back the other way" sounds like the kind of contact that may be worthy of a whistle all by itself irregardless of the consequences.

There is also a principle "don't pass on illegal contact that creates a violation, foul, or turnover. Go back and get the illegal contact." (And then keep the response, "You're right, coach. It is a late whistle, but it was still a foul.") The fact that the contact made the steal possible just reinforces that it was illegal. Not blowing the whistle rewarded an illegal defensive play.

Too late is too late. It's a tough call, and no doubt about it. I'd say in your situation, once the dribbler had turned, it was too late.

The trick to getting this call right is A1's "ability to play through". Sounds like there was the ability there, and B2 just took advantage of a "fumble". Whether or not to have called the bump originally would probably depend on the level of play, and the overall style of the game, and what else was being called. You probably got it right by not calling it.

I finished my response, and then read Rusty's. Funny that they're the exact opposite!! It just shows that there's lots and lots of judgment involved, and each situation is different. If I were you, I'd keep watching other refs games, and keep adding to your data bank. See how others call this amount of contact at the same level, in similar situations. Work on developing the instincts that might give you an automatic response that you can feel good about.

ditto rainmaker's last post.....:D

[QUOTE=Rusty Gilbert] irregardless .. <<Rusty, just for the record irregardless is not a word:)

I agree with the with what you stated.

The contact in this case that "sort of turns A1 around so he is going to start to dribble back the other way" sounds like the kind of contact that may be worthy of a whistle all by itself irregardless of the consequences.

***You could be right. What I had was though was a kid who took a little bump , it sort of turned him and he just went with it by just going with the flow.

There is also a principle "don't pass on illegal contact that creates a violation, foul, or turnover. Go back and get the illegal contact." (And then keep the response, "You're right, coach. It is a late whistle, but it was still a foul.") The fact that the contact made the steal possible just reinforces that it was illegal. Not blowing the whistle rewarded an illegal defensive play.

***That's what I thought after as well. I think if I had seen B2 coming in for the steal I could have seen what was going to happen and gone ahead and blown my whistle before the steal even occurred. I actually do recall blowing whistles like that before. But I agree with you I should have got it.

How late is too late?

Next week.

Seriously, having a patient whistle is a good thing. It allows you to see the whole play and its' consequences. If you see a bump, and the player plays through it and gets past the defender, there may not be a need to blow the whistle. I saw that play happen at camp this past weekend - A1 got bumped on a drive about the free throw line, made it past the defender, and went in for an easy layup. The coach asked the official why they didn't call the foul, and the official replied, "Do you want me to wipe off the basket and give you the ball out-of-bounds instead?" You could see the light bulb go on in the coach's head.

Granted, maybe there is a time that would be too late, such as the next quarter. "Gee, coach, I didn't realize you were going to be this far behind, so I decided to give you that foul back at the 3 minute mark of the first quarter"... In your play however, if you blew the whistle after the steal, I would perhaps sell it a little more, but it's still an easier explanation that the call was a little late, rather than trying to explain not making the call at all.

****I like your attitude. : > ) Although in hindsight I should have called it. I was going to get grief from one coach or the other so that was a wash but the steal surprised me as I didn't see him coming in to steal the ball. As I ran past Coach A he asked,...wasn't he bumped? I was busy running down with the layup but by the time I came back past him I realized what had happened and told him that I should have called it. But you live and learn.

You answered your own question.

Ok, so should he have blown his whistle at that time and called the foul?

And, should the resulting layup count, or should he wipe that off?

I think the question isn't whether or not it was a foul, but once he realizes it should've been called a foul, how long can you wait before calling it?

Before the player that stole the ball gets more than two dribbles away.

I dunno...it's going to look ugly either way. He was late on a foul call...does he want to compound the problem by letting the opposing team benefit TWICE because of the original non-call?

I didn't see the play; he did. If, after thinking about it, he thinks that he should have called a foul, then he should have called it. From his original description, it sureasheck sounds like a foul should have been called. If the dribbler gets bumped off his path and also turned around at the same time, that is <b>not</b> incidental contact.

If the subsequent steal was fairly close to the original contact, you can come in with a late whistle and explain it away fairly easily. If the player hasn't recovered his balance yet from the bump, as he said in the op, then it certainly ain't too late. Call it as soon as the ball is stolen.

I agree; I was just trying to be a little bit of a smart-a$$.

I know I've had that brain-locked condition where you see the play, and think to yourself, "Someone should call something"; then you realize <B>you're</B> the one that should be calling something. So how much time should elapse before you just say, ok, now it's too late? I agree as soon as the ball is stolen is still ok. I also agree once the ball is stolen and the other team lays it in, that's too late. Does anyone have any "rule of thumb" as to when is it <B>really</B> too late to come in with a foul call? 2 steps? 2 seconds?

game management
 

speed, rhythm and control. If any of those three are interupted, it's a foul

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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 <b>nothing</b> to do with the call either. Advantage/disadvantage does. You call what actually happens; not what you <b>think</b> should happen.

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

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.

If you tap a player on the shoulder is it a foul? How about if you tap a player on the shoulder and he looks up and dribbles the ball off his foot? The tap on the shoulder doesn't cause him to lose the ball. The player's inability to dribble when not playing close attention to what he's doing causes him to lose the ball.

Ok, interesting question. Here's what Jurassic said in the post you quoted:

You then comment:

I think you just answered your own question! :)

1) If the tap gives the other team an illegal advantage by making the player lose the ball, then it sureasheck is a foul. Every time.

2) Yes, that's a foul. The tap created a definite disadvantage for the offensive player. He lost control of his dribble because of the contact.

3) Disagree. Diverting the player's attention through illegal contact caused the player to lose the ball. The defender gained an illegal advantage through that act. That's why it's a foul.

Methinks you really need to get someone to explain advantage/disadvantage to you. You don't seem to understand the concept. The <b>degree</b> of the contact isn't the deciding factor. The <b>result</b> of the contact is.

I understand the concept of advantage/disadvantage. However, I also understand that incidental contact can cause a disadvantage. Incidental contact is not a foul. However, according to your interpretation, incidental contact that causes a disadvantage is not incidental contact. This is pure Newspeak.

Advantage/disadvantage should be used to determine if a foul has occured if there is any question in your mind. It should not be the sole determining factor. For example, displacement should always be called a foul, regardless of whether you judge that an advantage has been gained. Conversely, placing a hand on a player always gives an advantage, since the player can be tracked without looking. Is this a foul? Now we're getting into "How much of an advantage is gained?" In a sense, the mantra of "read the rulebook" becomes meaningless because the game becomes one not of rules, but of opinions. This makes it impossible to get a level playing field, since everyone has differing opinons.

By definition, I think this is false.

I also disagree with most of the rest of that post. I do think that "advantage / disadvantage" is often an over-used excuse for not calling a foul.

What a great question and topic to explore on this forum. I am impressed with the fact you even asked this question. Unfortunately, there is no correct answer to this question. I think this has happened to every official, and we all struggle with it. The fact that you admit it is even bigger. Welcome to true officiating, we get some right, we miss some.

I'm going to approach this from a different angle, even though I think you should have made the call. I would be lying if I said this hasn't happen to me and I blew the whistle. In a recent camp, I called a handcheck on the ball atop the key. Clinician got on me saying the call didn't need to be made because the A1 never lost control. Then they turned around and said the game was getting too rough and we needed to call more. Welcome to officiating. I think we have to balance something that is unbalanceable, if that is a word.

In this particular case, and I have done it myself and I have seen it done. What ends up happening next is a make up call. The next time down the court, the slightest degree of contact and we got a call. I have seen this in the NBA and in DI college. This is one point you guys have not touched on but this is probadly the #1 thing that leads to makeup calls. I missed the call the last time down the court but I'm getting this one, even if the contact is not as severe. Of course, no official will admit to makeup calls which is why I think this is a great topic to explore.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jimgolf
I also understand that incidental contact can cause a disadvantage.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I disagree with you on this on Bob. I can imagine several forms of legal contact that cause a disadvantage....

• Contact on the hand in an attempt to play the ball.
• Two players coming from equally advantageous positions in an attempt to get to a loose ball and one of them is bigger than the other and the collission at the ball knocks the smaller on down.
• A player sets a legal screen, the defender runs into it. The contact is incidental but legally puts the defender at a disadvantage.

People complain about a late call until the ball gets put in play again.

People complain about an obvious missed call until the next game starts three days later.