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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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?

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Is the shooter still a shooter until his foot returns to the wood?
Is the follow-through not a part of the try?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Really? We have a difference of opinion & you resort to name calling? That’s say a lot about you Mr. Assignor.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And you use RSBQ anywhere on the court to determine incidental contact versus illegal contact.

Well, the game and the way it's being officiated hasn't changed at all. Not a damn bit. The terminology only has changed.

Actually, RSBQ is used above the FT line extended (when used properly) SDF is used on plays to the basket below the FT line.

So, the players aren’t bigger, faster & stronger in todays game? If the way the game is being played has changed, why shouldn’t the mindset of officials change? Keep it in the 70s if you like… Im gonna change with the GAME!
But yeah guys like me don’t understand :->

The Tower Principle - For newer officials

Out with the old in with the new, but dont worry about it, you'll catch on in about 3-5 years. Then we'll be practicing some other new philosophies that you'll despise

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

So you have many “do-overs” in your games huh? If we can hold the whistle for a sec when players are “entering the lane on the way to the basket” we can put them on the FT line as opposed to “nice move kid, ohh & you scored as well, now take it out & try again.”

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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?

You've seen the release & the defensive hit that knocks the shooters hand sideways or vertically, I'm sure!
Our job is to judge whether that contact AFTER the release affected the shot.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

+1


Some people embrace change & adapt to better themselves, while others are stuck in neutral. I love change!!

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

I am proud to say that I'm am a responsible dog owner. I always carry a l'il doggie doo-doo bag and disposable gloves. I even mimic like I'm actually trying to pick sumthin' up if anybody happens to look my way, even though I never do. What I don't do is pat the l'il barker on the head and say "good doggie" and give her a dog treat after she takes a dump. Nobody ever does that for me. Fair's fair.

And as we talk, "going postal" is being changed to "going Carlos".

[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