Bulls/Cavs- changed call?
 

I was waiting to see if anybody posted on this play from last night...

Late in the 4th, Rose is fouled by Shaq- the ball goes up and in. C gives the "and one". Crew comes together and then changes the call to a simple blocking foul. Now that is what I saw- perhaps I missed an explanation.

Did I see that right? What is the NBA rule on continuation and is changing a call proper?


Also, didn't the same "C" also have another tough call almost immediately after changing the call on Rose...? I thought he did, but can't remember the specific play. Wonder how many of us in the same situation (not NBA) would be crowning the HC at the HS or College level after changing a call and then having the next call go against him/her...?

Two things:
1. I thought that the foul was clearly prior to the action of shooting, but that is coming from an NFHS and NCAA perspective. The NBA rules on this aspect of the game seem to be different and give the offensive player a more favorable slant. Perhaps by NBA rules he was shooting.

2. I thought that the offensive player traveled after being fouled and prior to releasing the try for goal. Of course, by NBA rules, perhaps he didn't travel. ;)

I saw that! Thought he should've got the bucket +1 because he gathered & never dribbled again. They DID lose by two as well. It can happen to the best of us.

I think its appropriate for partners to provide info & the calling official change their call or not, at any level of play.

Not sure about any subsequent calls...

What exactly does this mean?

Are you saying that after a HC gets a T that the next call shouldn't go against his team? If so, that's complete BS. I would hope that no self-respecting official would try to mitigate the penalty for a technical foul by looking for a call against the other team as the next call to make.

I disagree Nevada. The rules are written the same in all 3 codes. They use different words that mean essentially the same thing. The NBA uses "gather" & that is by far the best definition.

I think we should find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to looking for reasons to say "nice try, but take it out & try again."

JMO

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of that particular play and if our judgment differs that's no big deal.

However, you are not correct about the rules for all three codes being written the same. Simply ending the dribble by gathering the ball does not begin the act of shooting at the NFHS or NCAA levels.
The NBA also has something about "upward movement" iirc, but I'm no expert on the rules at that level, yet I can tell you with certainty that they don't match the other two levels.

Even more importantly the interpretation of the written rules differs at the NFHS and NCAA levels. So how these plays are commonly called is vastly different.

I respect that!
But as I sit here looking at the continuous motion rule in all three books, it still means the same thing at all levels to me.

IMO, A1 driving to the basket below the FT line extended, picks up their dribblle & illegal contact occurs. If they dont pass or request a TO & continue with the shot, I like to put em on the line.

Please try something for me and see if it gives you pause to think about your current position. Instead of looking at the definition of continuous motion focus upon the definition of "act of shooting," particularly how it begins. See if there is any discernible difference there amongst the codes.

And I disagree completely. Just call the damn play without any pre-determination of what the call should be. Simply decide on each individual call whether you felt the shooter was fouled in the act of shooting or not on that particular play. All you're doing is thinking yourself into trouble.

Bad advice.

And that's my opinion.

His difficulty appears to be that he may not have a solid grasp of exactly what constitutes being in the act of shooting.
I've asked him to research that point.

I understand JR & appreciate the opinion of decision maker! Thats exactly what I do, on each play that a player is fouled on a drive to the hoop, if they dont dribble again, pass or request a TO, they're shooting FTs in my ballgames.

For the record, the TIMING of the whistle is what makes it easier to sell. If you pop upon immediate contact, you'll get some grief. Patient whistles on drives to the bucket are much more easier to sell.


Nevada, I dont have any "difficulties" with the act of shooting & when it begins/ends nor the continuation rule. We just dont see eye to eye, no more no less...

IMHO officials that look for a reason to take the ball out instead of rewarding the player with FTs have the difficulty :D
Just kidding, I respect your stance but I will keep doing what has been working me & my progression in the craft ;)

For the record, I don't agree with that either. If you get the call correct, there is never a need to sell anything. Why do you have to sell any right call? And I could care less if I get some grief. Just deal with what comes up. And personally, I'm always a little bit concerned about any official who does worry about getting some grief. I'm always wondering whether they're gonna be able to make a tough call that they know is gonna bring the house down on their head.

Simply appearing confident in what you are doing is always the best sell imo.

Jmo.

Nah, my lack of recollection of the next play is the problem, plus my comment is a little vague- I meant to wonder out loud that if I were the C on the changed call, then had second controversial call immediately thereafter, WHEN I crown the coach for his sideline antics, how would each official handle the subsequent conversation with the coach?

Really, at the HS or college level, how do you try to diffuse the situation and move forward? What DON'T you want to say in terms of an explanation if you are C or either partner?

I would never suggest attempting to jimmy a call so a coach doesn't get peeved, nor would I go the "make up call" route.

Have you ever seen a CC go down the toilet because of the officials weak presentation to the table?
Or an IC not be questioned whatsoever because of the officials verbal at the spot & a strong presentation?

Thats what I mean by "selling the call" NOT hopping all over the court & those type of antics.
We have to be believable JR or nobodys gonna buy our act. I've seen "that guy" and boy do they have long nights when nobody is buying their act.

Couldn't agree with you more! My swag on the court is, what I DO speaks so loudly that I CANNOT hear what you say.
Meaning, once I pop & indicate 2 shots then the coach/players says "that was late" or "this is not the NBA" I'm going to the table stronger than normal, verbalizing/signaling where he got em & how play will continue in a very professional manner :D

Great point! Inner self confidence is the best recipe to sell ourselves & our calls. Is everyone gonna buy our act all the time? NO! For the ones that dont comply or decide to go over the top, well, we have tools to take care of that ;)

That's all I have to say on this. I may need assignments from you someday! lol

How, specifically, does a correct call go "down the toilet," for this or any other reason?

Take a great call to the table in a weak manner in a camp or any evaluation sitch & you'll see.

Decision makers at the next levels are looking for Rs not U2s.

I can tell you this, the coach, in my experience, is no more nor less likely to question a shooting foul call based on the timing of the whistle; and if you don't have a good answer for the coach's question, that will be the reason the crap hits the fan. If it's even close, the coach is going to question you to make sure you know what you're doing, and he's watching the shooter.

Thats because we're so inconsistent when it comes to putting players on the line, especially at the HS level here in CO.

"Coach he began the habitual motion which preceeds the shot well before the foul occured", always works for me Snaqs. :D

As someone who does almost an equal amount of Pro-AM to HS/NCAA games, I can tell you that while you may be assuming they are similar, the rule is significantly different in that the gather is NOT the beginning of the habitual motion as defined under NCAA/NFHS -- I do agree that with a patient whistle you can allow the player to get INTO his habitual motion... but make sure you understand they are different (sometimes by maybe a second at most - but an important distinction)

I work Pro-AM as well Bradford.

You are absolutely correct by rule book definition, but let me ask you this, once a player gathers (at any level) on a drive to the bucket, what are they doing next??

Timing ;)

I try not to use the word 'habitual' when calling girls/women's games. It may come out wrong or be heard incorrectly. But that is just me!!
I had an evaluator tell me once the question I have to ask in that situation is "What the hell else are they going/able to do with the ball?"

Bingo!

As I said, 100% agree a patient whistle is key on plays to the basket. You weren't differentiating on understanding the difference when it comes to definition.

And the answer, after they gather they are going to begin their habitual motion and thus HAVENT began their habitual motion at the gather :-p

Shooting, passing, holding the ball or calling a timeout. Or maybe traveling. :) And it's up to you to decide which one they're doing/did.

Don't confuse a patient whistle with a patient decision. They're completely different concepts. You can blow your whistle immediately for an obvious foul but still wait to see the result of the foul before deciding whether it was of the "shooting" variety or not.

A patient whistle usually means that you're deciding whether the contact actually was a foul or whether it was incidental contact. And no matter how long you delay the whistle, if it is a foul you're still going to have to make the exact same decision as to whether the foul was in the act-of-shooting or not.

Agreed that it's not well applied; I've seen the shot waved off too many times, and that's exactly why coaches question it when we count a basket and/or award free throws when the foul occurs early in the shooting motion.

Exactly, having a patient whistle allows me to see the play through to the finish vs. popping on initial contact while the play is still developing. For me, its just enough time to actualy rewind the play & see it again before putting air in it. I hear thats the best way to help decrease your INC/ICC %.

I believe the purpose & timing of the patient whistle eliminates the "or not." How & what we do at the spot of the foul & at the table sells the decision we just made to the players/coaches/fans. We get the most pushback after a call has been made because the clocks not running. No calls are easier, we keep it moving :D Having great court presence assists in mangaing the emotions of the game, no?

Well, thats what I see the big dogs doing anyway.


Okay so its not just me :D It really makes for an inconsistent called game, unfortunately.

That was precisely the point which I was making to tref earlier in this thread, but he insists that he has no difficulty with the distinction at the different levels. Personally, I believe that he is applying the principles of the pro game at the HS and college levels.

Nevada, I agree with bradfordwilkins on the differences between when the act of shooting begins from amature to pro levels too. IMO the timing of whistle is whats most important as the difference is only a second. We tend to pop too soon & interupt the game. I'm sure we've all had the play where there is contact on the drive & the player goes right thru it & scores with ease. Now we're giving cheap and1s or worse, interupting the game to administer do overs.

I wouldn't say I'm applying pro principles at the amature level, just the pro mindset as basketball is basketball.

I'm not saying drives equal FTs each & every time, I'll put em OOB when the play dictates. But I'm always looking for a reason to reward the player with FTs. It's been working for me.

For the record, I posted here as CH1town previously, changed my email addy & my account locked up.

And imo you still don't understand the concept being discussed. You blow your whistle when a foul occurs. Period. If the contact didn't affect the play, it's incidental and you don't blow your whistle. The timing of your whistle depends on when you determine a foul should be called. Period!

Again, all a "patient whistle" is doing is determining whether a foul actually occurred on any particular play. And determining whether the foul was of the shooting variety or not does NOT depend on the timing of the whistle either. There is no correlation at all between the two. Determining whether the foul was of the shooting variety or not is yet another different judgment to be made when calling the foul.

You judge whether a foul should be called on a play using advantage/disdavantage, incidental contact and other principles. You then have to make another judgment as to what kind of foul it should be.

Methinks you don't really understand pro principles either. They ain't really different when it comes to a patient whistle. They use them the same way that people at the NFHS/NCAA levels do also. What you're describing is a problem with officials blowing their whistles before they have had enough time to determine whether the contact was actually illegal or not. And that's an individual problem that needs to be pointed out to them so they can work on it.

You're needlessly making a fairly simple concept difficult imo.

Gotcha, thanks JR!