Things I learned at camp

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tref

Ummmm no, sorry JR but thats NOT even close to what I said:

2) I believe illegal contact on the dribbler (RSBQ) on the perimeter requires an immediate whistle. While plays to the basket below the FT line extended require a patient whistle (SDF).

A foul is a foul...

I think JR's point, and the point I'm confused about, is your statement above - it sounds like if there's a foul on the dribbler you would blow the whistle immediately, but if there's a foul on a play to the basket you would wait. If that's what you are saying, I agree with JR - once contact is determined to be illegal, the official should blow the whistle immediately.

Now, I may gve you the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps you are actually saying that it is easier to determine whether whether contact on a dribbler is illegal, because of RSBQ. And, conversely, it may take a little longer to determine if contact on the way to the basket is illegal. But, either way, once the contact is determined to be illegal, the whistle is blown immediately.

Maybe it sounds like you're saying the same thing, but there's a subtle difference in the terminology. An official does not have a patient whistle after contact has been determined to be illegal, but rather they have a patient whistle to determine if contact is illegal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

AbsoFREAKINlutely!

Contact in the paint is far different from contact on the perimiter.
Once WE as officials get better on determining RSBQ vs SDF oh what a wonderful world it will be!

No disrespect, but it seems to me that its the vets who dont want to change their mindset. Probably why WE dont put em on the FT line as WE should on drives to the basket. The GAME has changed & WE need to adapt.

I'm going to disagree, but I can tell you there are some in my association who work this way, so it may come down to me simply acquiescing in order to move up. I look at it slightly differently than you do, t.

If the shot is noticeably more difficult due to the contact, I'll call a foul. I don't want allow the defense to break the rules simply because the shooter was able to make an adjustment he shouldn't have had to make.

I don't recall ever waiting to see the result of the shot before making that decision. I do, however, recall a partner telling me at a break that he'd waited for the shot to miss before making the call; on a three point shot.

[tref]

I hear ya M&M, but contact alone doesnt determine a foul. I could've swore that the rulebook says the result of the contact is what determines what is & isn't a foul.

So... how can one determine that, if you're blowing the whistle prior to the play finishing???? Result = Finish, no?

I'm not talking about obvious fouls, just plays to the basket with contact.

Immediate whistles on plays to the basket results in cheap And1s & GIs more often than not.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm going to disagree, but I can tell you there are some in my association who work this way, so it may come down to me simply acquiescing in order to move up. I look at it slightly differently than you do, t.

I respect it.

If the shot is noticeably more difficult due to the contact, I'll call a foul. I don't want allow the defense to break the rules simply because the shooter was able to make an adjustment he shouldn't have had to make.

Concur, I'm getting obvious illegal contact as well.

I don't recall ever waiting to see the result of the shot before making that decision. I do, however, recall a partner telling me at a break that he'd waited for the shot to miss before making the call; on a three point shot.

Only time I wait on a 3 is when they contact the hand/wrist just after the release. A hit prior to or upon release, I'm getting immediately as that is not a drive to the bucket (no need for patience here). The key to those plays are taking the shooter up, down & beyond.

[Mark Padgett]

Here's one I learned from Earl Strom - WIDTHAO. It stands for: "When In Doubt Toss His A$$ Out".

Try it - it works!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Only time I wait on a 3 is when they contact the hand/wrist just after the release. A hit prior to or upon release, I'm getting immediately as that is not a drive to the bucket (no need for patience here). The key to those plays are taking the shooter up, down & beyond.

IMO, contact on the hand or wrist after the release isn't a foul; this is not an advantage as it doesn't restrict the shooter from performing normal offensive movements since they are completed. The only contact after the release that I'm calling is contact from which the shooter is either displaced or knocked down.

I can't find the rule that says the final result of the play is what determines the foul. It says "prevents an opponent from performing normal defensive or offensive movement" or something to that effect. The closer th shooter is to the basket, the higher the threshold for advantage, IMO, but there's no rules backing for waiting to see if the shot goes in.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

2)Ummmm no, sorry JR but thats NOT even close to what I said:

2) I believe illegal contact on the dribbler (RSBQ) on the perimeter requires an immediate whistle. While plays to the basket below the FT line extended require a patient whistle (SDF).

A foul is a foul...



2)I dont have problems with coaches, I dont give cheap And1s & definitely no GIs

Yup, a foul is a foul. And incidental contact is incidental contact. You hear those cute l'il buzzwords like RSBQ and SDF but you obviously don't have any idea what they really mean or how to apply them. Illegal contact is a foul anywhere on the court no matter whereinthehell it occurs- on the perimeter or going to the hole. When you see illegal contact, you call the foul. Period! No delay! But sometimes you have to use a patient whistle BOTH on the perimeter and on plays going to the hole. You do that to see if the contact was incidental or illegal. That was my point, which you obviously don't understand.

2) Here's the statement that you made:
"I explained that the contact was enough for an and 1 but not just enough to put the the player on the line for the missed try."
You must have the dumbest coaches and the stoopidest "powers that be" in the whole freaking world if they can understand, let alone swallow, that nonsense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Now, I may gve you the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps you are actually saying that it is easier to determine whether whether contact on a dribbler is illegal, because of RSBQ. And, conversely, it may take a little longer to determine if contact on the way to the basket is illegal. But, either way, once the contact is determined to be illegal, the whistle is blown immediately.

Maybe it sounds like you're saying the same thing, but there's a subtle difference in the terminology. An official does not have a patient whistle after contact has been determined to be illegal, but rather they have a patient whistle to determine if contact is illegal.

And you use RSBQ anywhere on the court to determine incidental contact versus illegal contact. And RSBQ is just today's latest buzzword for the principle of advantage/disadvantage. And using advantage/disadvantage to determine whether contact is illegal or incidental has been around...oh...forever. But guys like tref don't understand sumthin' like that. They think that because they hear this crap at a camp, it's now the latest and greatest thing in the history of officiating. Well, the game and the way it's being officiated hasn't changed at all. Not a damn bit. The terminology only has changed.

[Jurassic Referee]

And for any other officials like tref that don't understand the difference between determining illegal contact versus incidental contact and think that RSBQ is the Holy Grail, here's the Tower Principle that has been used for that and has also been around...oh....forever. It's the exact same damn thing. The only difference is that you apply it equally everywhere on the court, not differently on the perimeter versus driving to the basket.

The Tower Principle - For newer officials

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

AbsoFREAKINlutely!

Contact in the paint is far different from contact on the perimiter.
Once WE as officials get better on determining RSBQ vs SDF oh what a wonderful world it will be!

No disrespect, but it seems to me that its the vets who dont want to change their mindset. Probably why WE dont put em on the FT line as WE should on drives to the basket. The GAME has changed & WE need to adapt.

Like it or not, that (observing the affect on a shot with potentially incidental contact) is the concept being widely taught in this area at all levels.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tref

I hear ya M&M, but contact alone doesnt determine a foul. I could've swore that the rulebook says the result of the contact is what determines what is & isn't a foul.

So... how can one determine that, if you're blowing the whistle prior to the play finishing???? Result = Finish, no?

I'm not talking about obvious fouls, just plays to the basket with contact.

Immediate whistles on plays to the basket results in cheap And1s & GIs more often than not.

Maybe we're talking about the same thing, but somehow I don't think so. We agree that "contact" is not a foul. I think we also agree officials should not blow the whistle immediately on contact. However, I think we disagree on when the whistle is actually blown. It should be blown immediately when it is determined the contact is illegal, NOT only when the play is "finished". And, the "play" does not always include the whole drive to the basket, however, it can include part of the path to the basket.

There is a segment of officials that use the reasoning that if a player makes the shot after contact, there wasn't a foul, and if the shot was missed, then there was a foul. That's not correct according to the rules, and just promotes lazy officiating. If a dribbler is bumped off their path due to illegal contact by a defender, it doesn't matter if they are just crossing the division line, or entering the lane on the way to the basket, it is a foul because it's illegal contact, and the whistle is blown at that point. The official shouldn't wait to blow the whistle solely because of one type of play over another.

Originally Posted by tref

Only time I wait on a 3 is when they contact the hand/wrist just after the release. A hit prior to or upon release, I'm getting immediately as that is not a drive to the bucket (no need for patience here). The key to those plays are taking the shooter up, down & beyond.

Can you tell me what unfair advantage is gained by the defense with contact on the wrist after the ball has left the hand? Does that contact affect the flight of the ball?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Like it or not, that (observing the affect on a shot with potentially incidental contact) is the concept being widely taught in this area at all levels.

And there's nothing the matter with that either. You're determining whether the contact was illegal or incidental using advantage/disadvantage and a patient whistle while determining that advantage/disadvantage. That hasn't changed. But if you determine that the contact on the shooter was really illegal from the git-go, there is no need at all for a patient whistle and no need to see if the ball goes in or not either. If that weren't true, you'd never have an "and 1". You just wouldn't call a foul every time the ball went in.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Maybe we're talking about the same thing, but somehow I don't think so. We agree that "contact" is not a foul. I think we also agree officials should not blow the whistle immediately on contact. However, I think we disagree on when the whistle is actually blown. It should be blown immediately when it is determined the contact is illegal, NOT only when the play is "finished". And, the "play" does not always include the whole drive to the basket, however, it can include part of the path to the basket.

There is a segment of officials that use the reasoning that if a player makes the shot after contact, there wasn't a foul, and if the shot was missed, then there was a foul. That's not correct according to the rules, and just promotes lazy officiating. If a dribbler is bumped off their path due to illegal contact by a defender, it doesn't matter if they are just crossing the division line, or entering the lane on the way to the basket, it is a foul because it's illegal contact, and the whistle is blown at that point. The official shouldn't wait to blow the whistle solely because of one type of play over another.


Can you tell me what unfair advantage is gained by the defense with contact on the wrist after the ball has left the hand? Does that contact affect the flight of the ball?

Yup and yup. Please carry on whilst I go walk my dog. This thread is now in good hands.

And I'm intrigued too about the concept of waiting on a 3 to see if the ball goes in or not when contact was made on the shooter's hand after the ball left his hand. That's a brand new concept to me also. Maybe the idea is to see if the contact affected the RSBQ of the hand.

And let me know if Zambrano shows up.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And there's nothing the matter with that either. You're determining whether the contact was illegal or incidental using advantage/disadvantage and a patient whistle while determining that advantage/disadvantage. That hasn't changed. But if you determine that the contact on the shooter was really illegal from the git-go, there is no need at all for a patient whistle and no need to see if the ball goes in or not either. If that weren't true, you'd never have an "and 1". You just wouldn't call a foul every time the ball went in.

In that case, I'd suggest that this entire debate is more about semantics than practical play calling.

I don't think anyone was suggesting passing on any/all contact just because the ball went in...just contact that was merely suspect.

If someone gets hammered, I'd hope everyone would have a call, even if the shot is made.

And I can't see using that much delay on a 3...this is more applicable in an interior situation.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup and yup. Please carry on whilst I go walk my dog. This thread is now in good hands.

And I'm intrigued too about the concept of waiting on a 3 to see if the ball goes in or not when contact was made on the shooter's hand after the ball left his hand. That's a brand new concept to me also. Maybe the idea is to see if the contact affected the RSBQ of the hand.

And let me know if Zambrano shows up.

Let us know if everything came out all right with your dog.

And, if Carlos does show up, I'm hiding my Gatorade containers.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Let us know if everything came out all right with your dog.

And, if Carlos does show up, I'm hiding my Gatorade containers.

He's chilling with Ozzie today. Have you checked Comiskey?