Things I learned at camp

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Have a patient whistle and know when the offensive player "gathers" the ball and start their habitual motion to shoot the basketball...when in doubt give two shots...don't penalize the offense since the defense committed a foul.

Imo the timing of the whistle is meaningless. What the calling official really needs to do is take the extra second to determine if the ball the ball was gathered or not at the time of the foul.

The whistle isn't the problem. The problem is the official not calling the play properly. And maybe the right idea is to get the official to think about the play for a second after he blows the whistle but before he declares whether it was a shooting foul or not. You have to drill it into their heads that when they see a foul, they also have to immediately check to see the status of the ball at the same time. If they don't do that, it doesn't matter how "patient" the whistle is anyway. They're just guessing.

JMO.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Imo the timing of the whistle is meaningless. What the calling official really needs to do is take the extra second to determine if the ball the ball was gathered or not at the time of the foul.

I don't think timing is meaningless. I think that if you get in a habit of calling plays quickly, you'll have poor timing when you need that extra half-second. Quick timing in basketball means you'll have fouls when you wish a second later that you would've passed on the call.

It's just like baseball. You develop good timing on all pitches and plays, even though you don't need it on 90% of them.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think timing is meaningless. I think that if you get in a habit of calling plays quickly, you'll have poor timing when you need that extra half-second. Quick timing in basketball means you'll have fouls when you wish a second later that you would've passed on the call.

It's just like baseball. You develop good timing on all pitches and plays, even though you don't need it on 90% of them.

I think that you missed my point, Rich. There are some plays that you can call quickly or slowly and the timing of the whistle makes absolutely no difference at all. Examples are plays like violations and obvious fouls. Player steps on a line, travels, etc....you see it, you call it. And by obvious fouls, I mean the ones that you're going to call no matter what when you put air in your whistle. Then there are some other other plays that you have to let develop and finish before you can make a decision as to whether that play deserves a whistle at all. Those usually involve contact situations in which you have to decide whether the contact was incidental or not. The best example of that is contact while rebounding. Some contact on a rebound is a no-brainer. If the player with position got shoved all over hell or knocked down, you gotta call it imo. On another rebound though, the player with legal position might have been displaced but either that displacement didn't stop him from getting the ball or the ball didn't come his way anyway. Those you can wait on and let go as incidental contact.

That's what a patient whistle means to me. You shouldn't call some plays quickly, but that theorem doesn't apply to all plays.

[tref]

Had a coach in a camp over the weekend ask, "is that one where you wait to see if it goes in?"
I explained that the contact wasnt enough for an and1 but was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try.
He bought into it & we had no more discussion about it.

Had another coach comment "that was so late."
Coach, would you rather me be late & right or quick & wrong... no more discussion.

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

Timing of your whistle & what you do after you put air in it, is crucial!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

1) Had a coach in a camp over the weekend ask, "is that one where you wait to see if it goes in?"
I explained that the contact wasnt enough for an and1 but was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try.
He bought into it & we had no more discussion about it.

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).

1) You're extremely lucky that the coach bought into that nonsense. Most coaches...and hopefully all officials reading this...wouldn't because that's all that it is--->nonsense. If the contact was enough to make it a foul, then you call the foul. End of story. If the contact wasn't enough to make it a foul, then the contact was legal(incidental contact) and you don't call anything. If you do call the foul, you then have to decide if the foul occurred before or after the player went into their shooting motion. That's where the "And 1" comes in. Try that one on an experienced coach...or evaluator...and you'll get crucified.

2) You believe that WHERE a foul occurs on the court can be a determining factor as to whether that foul should be called or not? Please tell me that you really don't believe that. Illegal contact anywhere on the court requires an immediate whistle as soon as you determine that the contact really is illegal in nature.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) You believe that WHERE a foul occurs on the court can be a determining factor as to whether that foul should be called or not? Please tell me that you really don't believe that. Illegal contact anywhere on the court requires an immediate whistle as soon as you determine that the contact really is illegal in nature.

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...

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I have seen officials use that same irrationale theory. Personally, I do not buy it. I am on the same side of bob jenkins, Nevadaref and Jurassic Referee

Great, I'm happy for you Zoochy You guys do what works for you & I'll keep doing whats best for me...
The powers that be obviously like what I'm doing, I dont know too many officials who got the C'Ship in year 4. Do you? But I respect your opinions...

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by tref

Great, I'm happy for you Zoochy You guys do what works for you & I'll keep doing whats best for me...

Are you saying that in certain situations you wait to see if the shot goes in before whistling a foul?

[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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

I explained that the contact wasnt enough for an and1 but was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try.

Impossible.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tref

Had a coach in a camp over the weekend ask, "is that one where you wait to see if it goes in?"
I explained that the contact wasnt enough for an and1 but was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try.

Please give some serious thought to never using that rationale again.
I hope that you don't actually think in that manner while officiating a game.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by tref

I explained that the contact wasnt enough for an and-1 but was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try.

I have seen officials use that same irrationale theory. Personally, I do not buy it. I am on the same side of bob jenkins, Nevadaref and Jurassic Referee

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't think timing is meaningless. I think that if you get in a habit of calling plays quickly, you'll have poor timing when you need that extra half-second. Quick timing in basketball means you'll have fouls when you wish a second later that you would've passed on the call.

It's just like baseball. You develop good timing on all pitches and plays, even though you don't need it on 90% of them.

There are three parts to a play.

1. The beginning
2. The development
3. The finish

The baseball analogy was great because that is what I try to do in basketball. You call the play too quick and you might be wrong. And yes I do this on all plays where I call a foul (or try that is).

Peace

[referee99]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You develop good timing on all pitches and plays, even though you don't need it on 90% of them.

That is a gem. Thank you.