The phrase "no call."
 

I have been reading a number of threads tonight and appalled at the number of times the phrase "no call" has been used. I remember Peter Webb telling me a number of years ago that there is no such thing as a "no call." Officials have to make hundreds of "yes, thats legal/no, thats not legal" decisions every game. Either the play is legal or the play is not legal. I agree with Peter.

Just my humble opinion and observation.

MTD, Sr.

I thought "no call" generally referred to a situation that, at face value, looks like an easy foul call but because of the parameters, is doesn't warrant a whistle.

Like contact between driving A1 and B2, where no advantage is gained on either side. Or, A1 posts up on B2, A1 spins into B2 who flops to try and draw an PCF, but the official correctly ignores the flop. It doesn't warrant a call (foul), thus it's a "no-call."

I see nothing wrong with the phrase. It's just a saying.

Actually if you reverse what you wrote it makes perfect sense...Yes that is illegal, no that isn't illegal...yes call, no call.;)

If it bothers you, do not use the terminology. But to me anytime I use the term "no call" that means to me a situation where something could easily be called and is not called. It is not about the legality of the situation. For me when contact occurs or when a weird handling of the ball that could be called a foul or a violation, but for some reason is not called. In some cases it could even be something illegal that happens that was not properly called. It is just a term. I do not see the big deal. Almost every evaluator I have ever come in contact uses it at some point and it is a common term in officiating vernacular. I am not going to stop using it anytime soon and it is like any other kind of jargon if you ask me.

Peace

A1 drives and there's contact by B1 that could be called a foul. But because it would negate A1's advantage, the foul is not called.

That's a good no call to me.

No problem with the term.

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 illega 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 whiistle.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Good night all. Have a good one tomorrow everybody, this old geezer needs to get his beauty sleep (about 3 or 4 centuries worth of beauty sleep).

Which was?

Actually I don't think we are making your point at all, you are failing to grasp ours.

If as you say it's either a call or isn't, what better describes that happening?

It's either YES there is a CALL with a whistle or NO there is not a CALL and there is no whistle.

What if you put air in the whistle and the play was legal? What are you telling everyone then?

Peace

My thoughts also............way too much semantics.

It's a useful phrase that has significant shared meaning for discussing situations with other officials. I'll continue using it even if it's "incorrect" on some level.

I was going to say "no comment," but then I realized that if you say "no comment," you've actually made a comment, so the point of saying "no comment" in the first place is lost by adding a comment even though you didn't really comment on anything in the first place.

No comment....to this whole thread.

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

Or as Mark says 'I have nothing'

Tantamount, even. ;)

agree to disagree?
 

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

hold up, shooter
 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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")?;)

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

i know i'm not 'the sh*t' but i hope i'm not 'sh*t' either
 

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.