The phrase "no call."

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

using or not using the phrase "no call" is paramount to using or not using the hands spread signal to indicate not closely guarded.

Tantamount, even.

[Beemer]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

With all due respect gentlemen, you are all making my point. If you decide not to put air in the whistle, you are telling everyone that nothing illegal has happened. One of the first things I learned as as basketball official is that you have nothing (meaning the play was legal) until you have something (meaning the play was illegal) and that you have something you put air in the whistle.

Mark, you never touch on the term advantage. Thats where the idea of a 'no call' comes from. Just because there is no whistle on a play, does not mean there was no illegal action. It does mean (in cases) that the illegal action did not affect the play.

Situations:

• Whistle on an illegal action deemed to affect play = a good call
• Whistle on a legal play = a bad call
• No whistle on an illegal action deemed to not affect play = a good no call
• No whistle on an illegal play deemed to affect play = a bad no call

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Mark, you never touch on the term advantage. Thats where the idea of a 'no call' comes from. Just because there is no whistle on a play, does not mean there was no illegal action. It does mean (in cases) that the illegal action did not affect the play.

Situations:

• Whistle on an illegal action deemed to affect play = a good call
• Whistle on a legal play = a bad call
• No whistle on an illegal action deemed to not affect play = a good no call
• No whistle on an illegal play deemed to affect play = a bad no call

I will take issue with only what you are saying. Contact is not illegal until it creates and advantage. So if you have illegal contact that needs to be called. That involves a lot of judgment.

Peace

[Beemer]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I will take issue with only what you are saying. Contact is not illegal until it creates and advantage. So if you have illegal contact that needs to be called. That involves a lot of judgment.

No way Jose, disagreed. Your telling me that if I push a player on purpose after a whistle, that is NOT illegal because I didn't gain an advantage? It is illegal, and no advantage was had.
Also, if I set a screen in which I hold you, or push you off your position, and the ball handler that you are guarding is 10 feet away standing there, running out the clock, I say thats illegal. Depending on the severity I would/wouldn't call it. But no advantage is gained. Illegal = no advantage necessary.

I'd love to hear others opinions on this, I still say there is such thing as illegal contact without creating or losing an advantage. The two things are not one in the same, and thats why the term 'no call' is appropriate. I contend that if what JRutledge says is true, then the term 'no call' is inappropriate.
But hey, me being wrong isn't be a first, and you can bet your mortgage it won't be the last.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Beemer

No way Jose, disagreed. Your telling me that if I push a player on purpose after a whistle, that is NOT illegal because I didn't gain an advantage? It is illegal, and no advantage was had.

Yes. And if you do not believe me, read 4-27.

Originally Posted by Beemer

Also, if I set a screen in which I hold you, or push you off your position, and the ball handler that you are guarding is 10 feet away standing there, running out the clock, I say thats illegal. Depending on the severity I would/wouldn't call it. But no advantage is gained. Illegal = no advantage necessary.

Well based on what you just said, I would contend that you could have an advantage.

Originally Posted by Beemer

I'd love to hear others opinions on this, I still say there is such thing as illegal contact without creating or losing an advantage. The two things are not one in the same, and thats why the term 'no call' is appropriate. I contend that if what JRutledge says is true, then the term 'no call' is inappropriate.
But hey, me being wrong isn't be a first, and you can bet your mortgage it won't be the last.

It is great to have opinions, but what you said is not how the rules read. And having said all of that, some will interpret the rules differently based on many factors. What I am telling you is the rules do not consider contact illegal unless there is an advantage created. And that involves judgment of course and even the severity of the contact does not make the action illegal. Once again, read 4-27 and come back to the site and tell me where your rules support for your statement lies.

Peace

[Beemer]

Well, JR, I beleive both of us are wrong at times, and I'm right less often that you. This arguement is a dead end.
I read 4-27 and get what its saying about incidental contact. The idea of advantage is in there, but not expressly written.

P.S. Andy Pettitt helped me write this.

Also I don't think my complete idea got across: illegal action could result in a foul, or violation. I think when it is thought of in terms of a violation it hits the points better, although I will agree the OP is talking about fouls.

Situations:

• Whistle on an illegal action deemed to affect play (advantage) = a good call
• Whistle on a legal play = a bad call
• No whistle on an illegal action deemed to not affect play (no advantage) = a good no call
• No whistle on an illegal action deemed to affect play (advantage) = a bad no call

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Beemer

The idea of advantage is in there, but not expressly written.
[/LIST]

Try reading the section titled "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES" on p.10 of the NFHS rulebook.The idea of advantage/disadvantage is expressly written there.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Well, JR, I beleive both of us are wrong at times, and I'm right less often that you. This arguement is a dead end.
I read 4-27 and get what its saying about incidental contact. The idea of advantage is in there, but not expressly written.

P.S. Andy Pettitt helped me write this.

Also I don't think my complete idea got across: illegal action could result in a foul, or violation. I think when it is thought of in terms of a violation it hits the points better, although I will agree the OP is talking about fouls.

Situations:

• Whistle on an illegal action deemed to affect play (advantage) = a good call
• Whistle on a legal play = a bad call
• No whistle on an illegal action deemed to not affect play (no advantage) = a good no call
• No whistle on an illegal action deemed to affect play (advantage) = a bad no call

Beemer...good to see a fellow WA boy in here debating rules and situations with these guys.
You will certainly learn a lot...it will make you a better official, IMO...and you may just win a battle or two, with these stubborn louts, at some point.

(You have a PM)

Oh yeah...I had a "no call" the other night. Some might say it was a "missed call".
So, maybe we can have *good calls, *bad calls, *no calls, and *missed calls...(or would that be a "bad no call")?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Try reading the section titled "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES" on p.10 of the NFHS rulebook.The idea of advantage/disadvantage is expressly written there.

Thanks JR, I have read this before but it does the EGO some good to rehash the "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES".

[Beemer]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Try reading the section titled "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES" on p.10 of the NFHS rulebook.The idea of advantage/disadvantage is expressly written there.

Hey man, I'm just learning to read so go easy. But my comment, if you are going to get technical on me, was intended for page 36. Go read 4-27, and try to tell me the word advantage appears (which, as I can see myself needing to clarify, would constitute being expressly written). Its not.

Now...*sigh*...I know the feeling when players try to tell me they are 'getting hammered'

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Hey man, I'm just learning to read so go easy. But my comment, if you are going to get technical on me, was intended for page 36. Go read 4-27, and try to tell me the word advantage appears (which, as I can see myself needing to clarify, would constitute being expressly written). Its not.

Now...*sigh*...I know the feeling when players try to tell me they are 'getting hammered'

Sorry to bother you. It won't happen again.

Have a good career.