He stole my call

[Scratch85]

The thread about who has first shot at a call reminded me of this. About a week ago, in the post game (3-whistle) discussion between my partners and me, one partner had a concern about having calls taken away from him in his PCA.

The calls that commonly lead to a "who's call is it" situation occur mostly in the lane and involve the C and the L. And less frequently involve the T and anyone else. The calls my partner was questioning were the ones in the lane. We've all had them and we all agree the most important thing is getting the call correct. We all also agree and pregame, no quick preliminaries on a double whistle. So it wasn't a big deal just a conversation. But a phrase that my partner used really got me thinking.

My partner used the often used phrase, "I wanted to see the whole play through." He made the statement while trying to decide if his whistle was too slow or if his partners' whistles were too quick. He and I call together a lot and the other official was somewhat the odd man out. I know that he was really inferring that his partners' whistles were too quick but just let the conversaton take its' course. It was amicable and all is fine.

After all that rambling here is my opinion. I understand seeing the whole play through. But I only see it as means of making certain how the penalty for the violation is applied. My opinion is that when the violation occurs, you blow your whistle immediately and then see the play through its' entirety and make any judgement(s) needed.

I am with this partner tomorrow night. I am looking for thoughts, opinions and experiences concerning a "patient whistle" and "if its' in your PCA, go get it. Don't delay". I am planning to pregame it extensivley tomorrow.

[Adam]

Sometimes the only way to tell if contact is a foul is to see the entire play; it leads to whistles that may be a bit "late," but the alternative is to have whistles on contact that really wasn't a foul.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sometimes the only way to tell if contact is a foul is to see the entire play; it leads to whistles that may be a bit "late," but the alternative is to have whistles on contact that really wasn't a foul.

I was originally thinking of "on ball" coverage. Can you describe a situation where there is contact involving a player with the ball that would require seeing the entire play to determine if it was a foul or not.

[Adam]

Most of them.

1. A1 drives around defender B1. B1 reaches and slaps A1 on the arm, or bumps him, as he goes by. If you whistle this too soon, you may have cost A1 a wide open layup.

2. A1 goes up for a shot in the paint, B1 slaps his arm (or bumps him). If the shot is made noticeably more difficult by the contact, it's a foul. If there's no real affect, it's not.

3. A1 driving a fast break gets his arm slapped at the division line just as he releases a pass to A2, who is wide open, cutting towards the basket. You can call the foul, or you can let A2 shoot his shot. A1's pass was virtually unaffected by the contact.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

I was originally thinking of "on ball" coverage. Can you describe a situation where there is contact involving a player with the ball that would require seeing the entire play to determine if it was a foul or not.

A1 is, say, at the elbow, trying to turn the corner around B1, who has his hand on A1's hip applying a bit of pressure. If A1 gets slowed there, you probably have a foul. If A1 feels the contact and continues by for a layup, you penalize A by calling a foul, which isn't intended.

[Adam]

The key is to know the definition of a foul, 4-19-1:

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements.

IOW, without advantage, there isn't really a foul. Sometimes it takes a second to determine whether or not there was an advantage gained.

The other definition to look at here is "incidental contact." 4-27-3 in particular.

[Smitty]

As you move up levels, you tend to learn what advantage/disadvantage really means and how having a slower whistle can affect your judgment. Typically in lower levels, there aren't as many kids who can play through contact to finish plays, so there is less of a need to see a play through. But when you move up to a more skilled level with stronger players, you'll notice when you make a call too soon. I learned this when I called fouls as lead watching A1 driving the baseline and defender B1 gets beat and gives a little hip that makes contact that would normally push a lower level player out of bounds. As I'm blowing my whistle, A1 is finishing his uncontested layup and I have to wave it off. Ooops.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

I was originally thinking of "on ball" coverage. Can you describe a situation where there is contact involving a player with the ball that would require seeing the entire play to determine if it was a foul or not.

I had one last week (3-man). I'm lead late in the game, losing PG drives down lane, picks up his dribbles, gets a bump. I immediately hit my whistle. As my whistle is blowing PG is passing to a wide open teammate for what would have been an easy lay up.

The contact from the defender did not hinder the PG. If I would have held my whistle I would have seen the "whole play" develop and finish.

[Adam]

BNR, I had a coach get mad at me for taking away just such a play. I'm much more comfortable explaining that no call now.

Another one is the play when a defender bumps into the player with the ball, causing him to lose his balance. I had this once, and had a late whistle because the bump caused the player to travel.

[Ignats75]

As I have gotten more experienced, I have learned that a slow whistle makes it easier to answer a coach's question about what I saw when he didn't like a call.