Block, Charge or No Call

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Just b/c I can:
This looks like a GREAT example of the "Patient Whistle" theory. It would be nice to see what would have happened had the shot not gone in. Would a block or a foul on the player trying to block the shot been called? It may just be the official waited for the bucket to go in before they determined if the contact was enough to disrupt the shot. So they ignored the block/charge and the other defender following thru and contacting the offensive player as they were both going to the ground!!
Man I am ornery today!

And I know exactly why you can...and why you persist on doing so....

It might help if you had a clue as to what a "patient whistle" actually is. You very obviously don't.

Just because a shooter is able to make a circus shot after being hammered doesn't mean that the contact on him now has to be incidental instead of illegal. Using your special interpretation of a patient whistle, the shooter could end dismembered in the fourteenth row, but you'd have us saying "play on, the ball went in".

lah me.......

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I know exactly why you can...and why you persist on doing so....

It might help if you had a clue as to what a "patient whistle" actually is. You very obviously don't.

Just because a shooter is able to make a circus shot after being hammered doesn't mean that the contact on him now has to be incidental instead of illegal. Using your special interpretation of a patient whistle, the shooter could end dismembered in the fourteenth row, but you'd have us saying "play on, the ball went in".

lah me.......

I am very aware what a patient whistle is (I can even show you several 'report cards' that give me high marks in that regard. I even got bubble gum and lollipops with them!) The play you describe and the play on the video are two different plays. While some may think it is a ticky tack foul, I am boldly going to say that the contact in YOUR scenario would be a foul. I would even go so far to say that it would be a SHOOTING foul!!!
As for the play on the video, I probably would have whistled a blocking foul. Since no one here was on the endline for the call I was just trying to give a possible divination of what his thought process was. As I watched the video a couple more times that is where the "patient whistle" theory came from.
I am so glad you don't disappoint me You always can bring a smile to my face by reading things into my posts that are not there. To assume that I would not call a foul until I knew whether the basket went in is about ludicrous as me assuming you call every bit of contact a foul!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I know exactly why you can...and why you persist on doing so....

It might help if you had a clue as to what a "patient whistle" actually is. You very obviously don't.

Just because a shooter is able to make a circus shot after being hammered doesn't mean that the contact on him now has to be incidental instead of illegal. Using your special interpretation of a patient whistle, the shooter could end dismembered in the fourteenth row, but you'd have us saying "play on, the ball went in".

lah me.......

There are officials, some may or may not be in my area, who will use the success or failure of the shot to aide them in determining whether some contact is incidental or not. It's not the sole factor, but it's a factor. Personally, I don't do that.

If the shot, in my opinion, is made noticeably more difficult by the contact for which the defense is responsible, it's a foul whether it goes in or not.

[junruh07]

I have not been at this very long, but something that has been stressed in our rules meetings is that there is nothing in the NFHS rulebook that allows for not calling a foul because it doesn't affect the shot.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by junruh07

I have not been at this very long, but something that has been stressed in our rules meetings is that there is nothing in the NFHS rulebook that allows for not calling a foul because it doesn't affect the shot.

The definition of a foul includes the idea of contact that puts the opponent at a disadvantage. No disadvantage, no foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The definition of a foul includes the idea of contact that puts the opponent at a disadvantage. No disadvantage, no foul.

Disagree somewhat. The definition of a foul also includes illegal contact without regard to advantage/disadvantage. That contact might be off-ball and really not put any player at a disadvantage, but if the contact is illegal it should be called.

A prime example might be a rebounder badly displacing an opponent under the board while a shot is in the air. If the shot goes in, that contact obviously had nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage...the contact never does affect anything... but it still has to be called. If it isn't, you're gonna have open warfare out there. Or maybe should you use a "patient whistle" on this one too?

And what kind of disadvantage is there really if an airborne shooter charges into a defender after his shot is released if the ball goes in? After the basket, the ball has to be corralled, taken OOB and thrown in to start play again. I can't see how anyone can say that the charge has hindered the defender from performing any normal defensive movement. You gotta call the obvious charges though. Or do you use of them "patient whistles" on that play also? Or does that "patient whistle" theorem only apply to the defender in a block/charge situation instead of both players.

Instead of trying to solely use advantage/disadvantage, methinks all of the the concepts outlined under both the definition of a "foul" and "incidental contact" need to be used.

[Raymond]

I'm good with a no-call. From our angle not easy to tell how much contact there really was between A1 and the secondary defender. Primary defender looked like he had some contact on the A1's arm.

Wasn't really a "crash" IMO. 2 bodies ended up on floor due to tangled feet.