Things I learned at camps
 

Just back from a 3-day camp (girls V and JV) and 2-day camp (Boys V and JV)

1. I still have a lot to learn.

2. What I do know, I need to improve upon.

Good advice.....you saved me all that money! Thanks. ;)

Sorry that was my bad attempt at humor.

Things I learned:

1. First three minutes sets the tone. Strong signals, clean up the post.

2. Always see your partner before in bounding the ball.

3. Stay in your primary. Do not be a ball watcher. Trust your partner.

4. As the level of play improves, the fouls become more subtle. More pushes to the midsection, legs etc.

5. You never know who's watching you officiate.

6. If there's confusion/doubt on a play, come together. Do not attempt to communicate with your partner from 40' away.

Long time lurker-infrequent poster. I had to share my camp experience: I had a great experience at a HS camp. I got yelled at for ball watching, and once for not calling an intentional foul. I saw the contact, but didn’t see the push in the back at the lead. I took the blame for getting straight-lined. My partner at the C bailed me out with the intentional call.
My clinician was retired NBA official Ron Olesiak. My partners and I jelled after the first half of the first game, and he recommended us for varsity games to our assignor. Wow! Ron then asked us to stay after our last game to talk advanced officiating for a few minutes. This turned into a one hour personal clinic. We covered RSBQ, continuation, block/charge, verticality, and types of contact that warrant a foul plus a great deal more. It was Fantastic! :)

Good stuff, 909. Thanks for posting.

BTW, if someone could elaborate a bit on the whole rhythm-speed-balance-quickness concept, I'd really appreciate that.

Here's the way I was taught the concept:

If the contact (when the defender is at fault) acts to disrupt the dribblers rhythm, speed, balance, or quickness it is a foul. I'm sure you've seen plays where a dribbler goes to turn a corner and there is a bump. If you see that bump impact the rhythm that the dribbler established before the contact then you should call the foul. If you see the dribbler slow down from the contact such that the defender gains the advantage you should call the foul. If the dribbler loses balance, then it's a foul. And if a dribblers quickness is neutralized by the contact, then there is a foul.

On the other hand, if the dribbler is able to work through the contact and get to where he/she wanted to go on the floor without a sufficient disruption, then the contact can be ruled incidental and you play on.

I hope this helps.

The concept hasn't changed in the 50+ years I've been involved...just the terminology. The NFHS has put out numerous POE's, interpretations, etc. over the years. Here's a prime example from an old POE:

HANDS OFF:
-defenders are not permitted to have hands on the dribbler.
- no displacement of a cutter.
- the measuring of an opponent(tagging) is hand checking, is not permitted and is a FOUL.*(NFHS emphasis, not mine)
- Use of a forearm, regardless of the duration of the contact, is a FOUL. *(again NFHS emphasis)
- hand checking is not incidental contact; it gives a tremendous advantage to the person illegally using their hands.
- this applies to both offensive and defensive players.
- principles involved in incidental contact (Rule 4-27) apply.

It's usually accepted that a defender can put one hand on the dribbler/cutter/post player if they take it right off again without displacing that dribbler/cutter/post player. Two hands on a dribbler/cutter/post player is an automatic foul, displacement or not.

The same POE, which was was issued for about 3 years in a row, also talked about defensive contact during post play and contact during screens.


And also note that that the NBA, NCAA and NFHS have all issued recent memos about not letting dribblers get "bumped". The "bumping" has been ignored too much in their collective opinions. They all felt that too much illegal contact was being let go on dribblers under the guise of "incidental" contact.

I had a varsity boys coach go ballistic on me over the weekend when I called a foul on one of his guys for putting hand on the ballhandler's hip and keeping it there from the 3 point line all the way to the block.

He gave me (and this was a first for me) the big "PHOOEY ON YOU" - turned head and waved hand at me.

It was awesome, I must say. :D

If he SAID that, I certainly hope you T'd him up. He showed you up big time.

The gesture alone might or might not deserve it.

I whacked a coach this season for that. He asked for an explanation, I started to give him one and then he gave me the dismissive wave. I channeled my inner-Snaqs and brewed some T.

mbryon - he did not say those words. That's the only way I can think of to describe his arm/hand wave.

I'm curious how others here on the forum might have handled the situation based on the info provided.

HTBT... that could be T-worthy ... and might not be as well.

For you, would it depend on the level of theatrics involved? Or something else?

In my sitch, he was in the coaches box - not stomping around like a fool. Just went from audibly arguing the call to giving the arm wave.

It took me a little off guard, mainly because it's freaking summer ball. But, he more or less "moved on" after doing it.

No further issues arose.

whack!

"Theatrics" - perhaps more visual than what I meant, but close enough. I mean - if it was derisive, or over the top, it's more likely a T than if it's just a minimal gesture from far away.

It would also depend on how the game has gone so far... if he's been beligerent the whole game, this might be the tipping point. If he's been an angel - I might be inclined to let more go.

Either way - you were there, I wasn't. HTBT. I think I'm inclined to go with whatever you felt was right in the circumstance.

I don't know. The image I have is that "Phooey on you" is almost too silly to be taken seriously. I might be too astonishedly amused to call the T.

Thanks to Hornets and Jurassic for the explanations. Jurassic, your asterisks strike me curious, though.

Good feedback.

Let's elevate this a little bit and insert this situation into a regular season and/or post season varsity game.

Same logic applies? Or, does the levity, etc of the game change things a bit?

To me, it's one of the triggers that can bring an ABS T. Or, in Welpe's case, when you are giving the coach the explanation he has asked for and he gives you the hand in the middle of it; fire away.

His action of visibly waving you off was not intended for you, but for those in attendance.

He just told everybody that he has no respect for you.

Have a seat coach.......

You were given the post season assignment because whoever gave it to you trusts you for your judgment, consistency, and mangement style...Why would you change the standards by which you work? A technical foul is the same in every game. No way on earth I'd change my tolerance or standards because this is a so called "big game."

+1

Peace

Deal with it. :)

He gave you what everyone in my house knows as the b-s wave.

My wife knows the b-s wave when she sees it; my kids know the b-s wave they see it. And when they see it happen at a game I am ref-ing, they know what's happening next.

It shows complete disrespect for what you're doing out there and that any reasonable communication with the coach is not possible. He simply is telling you to "go fry ice"

Take care of it.

Also attended a camp
 

Learned SO much. I think what impressed me most was the patience and enthusiasm shown by the instructors. What a great learning experience.

Of course I also learned that it's time to get serious about taking care of myself it I want to keep officiating. The DVD doesn't lie, the weight needs to come off.

I'm glad that you had a wonderful experience. The avocation becomes more fun as you improve and learn how to handle situations better, plus moving up allows you to see better play.
A word of caution: with your clinician being a retired NBA official what he told you is most likely going to come from an NBA perspective and the NBA has a different approach to the game. That means that some of what he said may not be appropriate for calling plays at the NCAA or NFHS levels.

Actually the individual he referenced is a current college and high school official and worked this past year at that level. I have been exposed to the very same person and what he teaches does apply to what we do at those levels (as I was around him during both a college and high school camp). Officiating is officiating if we stop trying to always point out the differences we think exist.

Peace

Given the fact that this individual is a current HS and NCAA official, his comments are more likely appropriate. However, every person has different experiences and forms beliefs and standards of judgment based upon those. Since he has the experience of working the NBA game, then he is going to have some philosophy and play calling principles from that level in his mentality. It is that which may or may not be appropriate to have filter down to the NFHS and NCAA levels. Perhaps he is careful not to teach any of that to NFHS or NCAA officials, but since the poster cited a discussion of "RSBQ" and "continuation" (which are NBA terminology) that leads me to believe that there is some carry over. That makes me suspicious of his idea of "types of contact that warrant a foul" at the NFHS and NCAA levels.

I will politely disagree with your statement that "officiating is officiating" and I also don't think that "basketball is basketball." There are vast differences in my opinion.

All I am saying is that many people try to make these levels so vast that you could not recognize or be able to officiate if asked to work those levels at the same time. My point is that is not true considering that most NCAA rules and NF rules are exactly the same (contact rules are the same). My approach is exactly the same no matter what I do. And talking with this official I have realized that more of what we do at the levels I work is not that different. We just try to highlight these differences when basically what we do is the same.

Peace

RSBQ, IMO, is a most valid discussion for the HS game at the higher levels. I don't understand how one can have a discussion about RSBQ without seeing it in the context of advantage / disadvantage, which we talk about *all the time*.

And continuation? Well, I'm still convinced that too many fouls are called "on the floor" when they should be considered fouls in the act of shooting at the HS level. So maybe using that word would convince HS officials that just because the feet are on the floor doesn't mean it's not a shooting foul.

I gave a coach a T for this type of gesture last season DURING A TIMEOUT. Felt great about doing it.

RichMSN and J Rut +1
Ron's clinic time was devoted to HS ball he made sure we understood this. He also agreed with Rich that too many fouls are called on the floor. ( This term does not appear in any rule or case book)

While I have a problem with "on the floor," that's only a part of the problem. Even officials who don't use the term are too quick to wave off a shot, and that's Rich's point.

I have noticed that trend here with several of my partners. It could be the level I'm working right now also.

Most likely it is, I've noticed the higher level (even HS) guys are more apt to call this correctly. Around here, I get the opportunity to work with seasoned varsity officials and 2nd year officials just getting to the JV level. But I've also seen the seasoned officials make this call. While I defer to their judgment and am very slow to question them (and careful about how I do it), I have seen a few calls that I disagreed with on this issue.

And Rich, I think, works varsity almost exclusively.

I was working at a camp this weekend and we had some issues with campers calling fouls on the ground instead of giving the player 2 shots. 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.

Good point Rich, at the HS level we wave off way too many shots!

Which level are you working right now?

This is a good point. Hold the whistle an extra half-second or so and it becomes a much less "controversial" call or one you have to sell. The call is the same (shots) and is just as correct, but the patient whistle makes the call easier for the coaches to understand.

I do work only varsity and juco, but this is a skill (patient whistle and learning when the ball is gathered in) that should be learned much earlier in one's career. And like Snaq, I see way to many 20-to-30 years guys erroneously wiping off a shot when at the minimum it should be a shooting foul (and a basket if the ball goes in).

It's one of my real pet peeves.

Jr High/Freshman mostly though I did have a couple of Sophomore and JV games. I've only done one season of basketball.

+111111111!!!!!!!

I also fully agree with the patient whistle, and I try to implement it myself, but what is it about basketball where some people expect a quicker whistle than other sports?

+1
I have been working on this concept for the last 2-3 seasons
This is turned into a good post with a great exchange of ideas and information. Thanx to all

"Late whistle" complaints? I've found that "late whistle" is code for, "I know it was the right call, but I have to whine about something." I also haven't heard one in a long time, to be honest.

Some situations should have a quick whistle; other situations might need a half-count longer for assessment. There's no problem at all with a quick whistle on violations and obvious fouls. The patient whistle is usually used to determine advantage/disadvantage on contact.

You can't make up hard and fast rules on when to blow your whistle. The situation determines that, and every situation is different.

In my opinion, there's a lot of confusion as to what a patient whistle actually is.

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.

There is a huge difference between a patient whistle and a late whistle. If you have a patient whistle on every play and see the play from start to FINISH and then decide if it even needs a whistle then every play will be the same. You won't jump calls or have "late" whistles.

Yeah, they're not exactly frequent. I had one complaint this year that a call was "ten minutes late." I'm not too big on hyperbole when I'm trying to be accurate.

If you're talking about the expectations of coaches, you're right, in general. You're still, however, going to get the occasional complaint on a legitimately patient whistle.

And, every now and then, you're going to have an actual late whistle.

Of course, but if all your whistles are "slightly" late it is harder for the coach to decipher a "late" whistle from a "patient" whistle.

When we have a late whistle on a good call they never argue that it was the right call only that it was slightly late...whatever coach! LOL

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.

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!

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

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? :eek: 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.

Impossible.

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.

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

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...

Great, I'm happy for you Zoochy :rolleyes: 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 :D

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Since this thread mentioned acronyms
 

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

Try it - it works!

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...officials.html

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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


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


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 :rolleyes:


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.”

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.


+1


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

Contacting the hand or wrist (or arm) during the follow through does not affect the shot anymore than the Fred Flintstone tippy-toe-jig affects your bowling throw after you've let it go. The follow through is good for ensuring your previous shooting movements were fluid, but interrupting it with contact does not affect that movement. The question remains:
What advantage is gained by the defender with this contact after the shot is released?
Yes, the shooter is still a shooter, which is why I'll protect him from harm by calling contact which displaces him or knocks him to the floor.
No, the follow through is not part of the try, even though the try is not over.
Personally, I can say from sitting with local varsity refs watching freshman games that if I start calling this sort of contact, I'll be working freshman games exclusively.

If the shot is missed, I can definitively state that it was not because of contact after the release.

Snaqs you did play the game at a competitive level didn't you? Contact on the follow through can change the shot, sometimes. That's what we get paid to judge.

I dont understand how that can be

hahahaha you KNOW damned well EVERYbody is watching the flight of the ball in freshman games! lol

Physically impossible, unless the shooter has the ball on an actual string (illegal) or is capable of actual magic (I might rule that an advantage not intended by the rules.) Once the shot is released, the shooter's motions cannot affect it.

Simple, just because the try itself is still legally not over doesn't mean the shooter's motion is part of it.

Now, if the contact is close enough to the release that you can't tell if it was before or after, then call it; but I'm not waiting to see if the ball goes in.
True enough, except for the jv and varsity officials sitting in the stands. :)

Concur, I hope I didn't give THAT impression! But I'm not using a patient whistle on jumpshots either, just dribble drives to the rack.

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".

1) I can't find one instance for where I called you a name. Your ideas about officiating are about the dumbest that I have ever read though. Note that relates to your opinions, not you personally.

2) And you still don't get it. And you never will get it. And I won't bother repeating myself again after saying for the last time that you haven't said one damn thing that is new in any way. Everything you said is just a re-packaged version of some very old and still valid officiating principles. And unfortunately, you don't even seem to understand the re-packaged version correctly either.

3) And that tells me all that I really need to know about you as an official. The only way that contact after the release of a shot can affect that shot is if the contact is on the ball, not on the shooter. Put that together with your statement "I explained that the contact enough for an and 1 was just enough to put the player on the line for 2 on the missed try'" and you got two statements made by you in this thread that tie for the stoopidest statements ever made on this forum.

Onwards and upwards to your Brave New World of officiating, tref. Hopefully, when you do build up some spit in your whistle, you might understand what we're talking about.

Ever JR? Come on man, couldn't be...

You sound like my daughter, if she cant relate to something then its stupid (but shes a child) whats your excuse??

That reminds me of another somewhat regular thing: the foul well after the release, particularly of the three-point shot.

We've all seen it. A1 launches a three, and B2 flies in and knocks into A1 well after the release. Based on the severity of the contact, I have these either as incidental or a non-shooting foul. I don't see how anyone can call a shooting foul under the circumstances, but they do.

Still, I sometimes wonder if it would be wiser to see if the shot goes in. It's rather unconventional to give someone three points and the ball or free throws. Thoughts?

If a defender 'knocks into" an airborne shooter & we judge the contact to be illegal, how can we not put em on the line, by rule?

And a little research shows that we ain't really looking at a new rodeo here.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...nged-call.html

Everything is changing but nothing really changes, eh Chitown? :)

And btw, you can add "I think we should try to find a reason to put them on the line as opposed to to looking for reasons to say 'nice try but take it out and try again'." to the list of dumbest statements ever made on this forum. The only thing that we look for is a foul, and we then have to decide whether that foul occurred in the act of shooting or not. That very basic principle seems to completely befuddle you for some reason.

Okay, you're right JR!! I'm going to change what's been working for me & my successful pattern because some guy(s) on the internet dont agree with how I word something. Keep in mind that we haven't seen each other actually work a game. But yeah, I'm gonna conform to how you want the game called. NOT!!!

As long as all of my assignors keep putting me on quality games, your opinion really matters to me like... NOT AT ALL!

Protecting an an airborne shooter from illegal contact has been a POE at both the NCAA and NFHS levels. It's up to the official to determine first whether the contact on an airborne shooter is illegal or incidental. And if you do call illegal contact on an airborne shooter, that airborne shooter is in the act of shooting until one foot hits the floor. Case book play 4.1.1.

That's how and why you can call a shooting foul under those circumstances. If the defender knocks the shooter down while that shooter is airborne, you should have a call...and the correct call is a foul in the act of shooting.

Hyperbole? Probably.

But I will have to agree it's a position not shared by any officials that I know. And, for the record, I do know officials that referee at the NCAA level, in both men's and women's, and I know officials that have officiated at the championship games of the Illinois High School Association tournament, both on the girls' and boys' sides.

So, I am curious - which officials and/or supervisors of yours agree with your position on contact on the arm after the shot is released also affects the shot?

Chitown, I'm well aware if that. And I could care less what you think or do either. You're a lost cause imo going way back. I do care though about other,newer officials that might mistakenly think that there is a faint possibility that you might actually know what you're talking about. So, when you post nonsense like you've been posting in this thread, I will respond. And no doubt others will also.

You've got a great future behind you.

Right, but I'm not talking about an airborne shooter. I'm talking about clearly after the shooter returns to the floor: A1 takes off, A1 releases, B2 comes at A1, A1 returns to the floor, B2 bumps into A1.

Again, the severity of the contact would determine whether this would be incidental or a foul, but it would NOT be a shooting foul, yet I still see it called that way. It isn't commonly accepted to give someone a foul after a shot that turned out to be good, but if the shot isn't made, that's easier to sell (especially in the bonus). In other words, how kosher is it to pause to see if the shot was good?

Not gonna name drop on here M&M, but ask your buddies if theres any absolutes & always in what we do. That's what makes it an art & not a science. And wow, how did we go from hand/wrist to arm? Pretty soon its gonna be elbow taps & gut pokes...

Could've fooled me, you put so much time & effort into me as if you have nothing better to do. I, on the other hand, only come here to kill time while on my Dolly Parton :rolleyes:

You care about bullying newer officials, perhaps. Playing internet God...

So my future is just as bright as yours eh :D

Well, I'm clocking out now so I'll treat you like a coach & let you have the last word...

Where I think you're wrong is with the idea that contact after the release can somehow affect the ball's trajectory. Yes, if a shooter doesn't have good follow through, he's likely got a poor shot. The follow through is just a sign, however, of technique. The follow through itself has no effect on the actual shot.

I've only had one coach question a no-call on after-the-release contact on the wrist; of course, his problem was the way he yelled at me, so we had a different sort of foul.

I can understand the idea that occasionally, contact will be so near the line between incidental and illegal that you'd use the success or failure of the shot attempt to make the judgment; but I would see this the same as going to the arrow on an OOB play because you couldn't tell who hit it last. IMO, it should be used slightly less often than that. But, I know there are assigners and evaluators around here who feel differently.

What I haven't heard from anyone, however, is that contact after the release should be called a foul when it doesn't disrupt the shooter's balance or position.

And that affects a persons ability to comprehend the rule in exactly what way?
Not in this universe. Go see any HS physics teacher if you must....but it physically impossible.

You could chop the shooter's arm off with a machete after the release and it couldn't possibly affect the shot.

While contact after the release could very well be a foul, it is most definitely NOT based on it affecting the shot.

This seems like one big discussion over semantics and wording.

I think too many get caught up in language of how something is described than whether it is a solid practice to call a foul.

Peace

+1

again

Changed your story a little bit. ;)

Not at all. Nowhere did I mention an airborne shooter in my initial question.

If the shot goes in, some would argue that there's no real advantage gained since there's no rebound. IMO, treat it like a block out in the post, that's what it is. If there's significant displacement, measurable in yards, then it's probably a good idea to get it. If not, then it gets a bit fuzzier.

If it's just a bump, with no displacement, you probably don't even have a foul regardless. If there's some slight movement, then I try to let it go unless the rebound heads to those two players.