Contact, Wait for It, Miss, Tweet.

[Rich]

I don't get all the hub bub. Really, a patient whistle lets you see whether or not advantage has really been gained. I look to see if the shot was altered because of the contact, not whether the ball goes in or not. That said, I'd have a lot more "and one" fouls if I didn't have a patient whistle. This is where I could throw in the phrase "game interrupter" and some people on thread would have a stroke.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get all the hub bub. Really, a patient whistle lets you see whether or not advantage has really been gained. I look to see if the shot was altered because of the contact, not whether the ball goes in or not. That said, I'd have a lot more "and one" fouls if I didn't have a patient whistle. This is where I could throw in the phrase "game interrupter" and some people on thread would have a stroke.

Rich, bainsey in the original post of this thread told us that advantage had definitely been gained by the contact. In that case, what purpose could you possibly have in waiting any further to blow your whistle? We know an advantage has been gained on this play because bainsey told us that in his original post. There is no decision to be made by us after we're given that knowledge.

You're right in that we should be applying advantage/disadvantage when determining if a foul should be called. The question from bainsey though is that when you decide that it definitely is a foul, do you also then further wait to decide whether you're going to actually call that foul or not until you see whether the shot is good?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rich, bainsey in the original post of this thread told us that advantage had definitely been gained by the contact. In that case, what purpose could you possibly have in waiting any further to blow your whistle? We know an advantage has been gained on this play because bainsey told us that in his original post. There is no decision to be made by us after we're given that knowledge.

You're right in that we should be applying advantage/disadvantage when determining if a foul should be called. The question from bainsey though is that when you decide that it definitely is a foul, do you also then further wait to decide whether you're going to actually call that foul or not until you see whether the shot is good?

Of course not, but you probably already guessed that. The patient whistle is just to process the entire play and best judge whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Sometimes that does take a few seconds, sometimes it doesn't -- I'd rather have similar timing on each whistle, so I just try to slow down and have the patient whistle all the time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Of course not, but you probably already guessed that. The patient whistle is just to process the entire play and best judge whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Sometimes that does take a few seconds, sometimes it doesn't -- I'd rather have similar timing on each whistle, so I just try to slow down and have the patient whistle all the time.

Naw, I knew that.

Of course you should use a patient whistle on contact to decide if that contact was incidental or illegal. Ain't nobody in this thread that's really denying that afaik.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Where does the OP state anything like the scenario you just described? If it was as obvious as above then of course you have a foul regardless. But I don't sense that is the kind of play he is talking about.

Maybe he mispoke when he said "advantageous." Because what I am talking about, and I assume the OP and JRutledge are too, is situations where there is marginal contact and you take into account whether or not the ball went in to decide if it was indeed contact that was advantageous.

I was only addressing the question he was asking, not the play. The play in this thread is really was in my opinion and example of what we are ultimately talking about. We are talking about whether the shot going in should matter if we call a foul or rule the contact advantageous to the defender.

Not sure how that was confusing. I never quoted the guy, just answered his last question. Oh well.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get all the hub bub. Really, a patient whistle lets you see whether or not advantage has really been gained. I look to see if the shot was altered because of the contact, not whether the ball goes in or not. That said, I'd have a lot more "and one" fouls if I didn't have a patient whistle. This is where I could throw in the phrase "game interrupter" and some people on thread would have a stroke.

LOL!!!

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that they still advocate using advantage/disadvantage as one of the criteria at the point of contact in determining whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Iow they're not waiting and trying to inject advantage/disadvantage in after the contact has ended.

I think....

zm1283 should clarify that in case I be thinkin' wrongly.

Why would you think that when he CLEARLY stated that they have been told to "throw advantage/disadvantage out the window" and that they will "never" get in trouble passing on marginal contact. Maybe you think he mispoke?

Reading is fundamental and comprehension is necessary. Where have I heard that before?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

My personal feeling is that it's more of a comprehension problem. They're confusing incidental contact with illegal contact.

We do have to decide if "marginal contact" is a foul. But when the contact occurs is the point where we have to decide whether that marginal contact was incidental or illegal contact. But that decision is solely dependant on the actual contact, not whether the ball went in or not after the contact. There's just too many factors involved to adjudicate the play that way...the athleticism of the shooter, the strength of the shooter, the determination of the shooter, etc. We should always be striving for calling uniformity for these types of plays from beginning to end and at both ends of the court. You can't possibly do that if there is a variation in the shooters with regards to their individual athleticism, strength, determination, etc. How can anybody possibly justify calling a foul on a play just because the shooter wasn't as strong as another player in muscling the ball into the basket after being similarly fouled with the identical contact on a play that was previously no-called?

We are also trying to get our guys to do exactly what you guys have been instructed to do. Decide whether the contact was illegal or not at the point of contact, and then try to call it that way uniformly at both ends from beginning to end.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that they still advocate using advantage/disadvantage as one of the criteria at the point of contact in determining whether the contact was incidental or illegal. Iow they're not waiting and trying to inject advantage/disadvantage in after the contact has ended.

I think....

zm1283 should clarify that in case I be thinkin' wrongly.

This is basically what I'm talking about.

Lets say A1 takes a turnaround jump shot at the free throw line. You're the Trail. You see B1 make contact with A1's arm. Should you wait to see if the contact "altered the shot" before you blow your whistle? Personally, if I see that, I blow the whistle and call the foul without worrying about whether or not the shot was altered. If it goes in we shoot one, if not we'll shoot two.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This is basically what I'm talking about.

Lets say A1 takes a turnaround jump shot at the free throw line. You're the Trail. You see B1 make contact with A1's arm. Should you wait to see if the contact "altered the shot" before you blow your whistle? Personally, if I see that, I blow the whistle and call the foul without worrying about whether or not the shot was altered. If it goes in we shoot one, if not we'll shoot two.

I will just speak for me and what I do. First of all I need to know the defender did something wrong. I think we call a lot of fouls on defenders when they did nothing wrong.

That being said the trajectory of the flight of the ball does have something to do with if the contact was significant or a foul IMHO. Especially if I do not see all the contact or think the contact was not significant at the time.

Peace

[bainsey]

Hmmm. I go away for several hours, and find you guys have been busy! I appreciate the responses.

If it helps, I'll offer a little clarity. Of course, I'm not talking about contact that so obvious that a competent official would call a foul. This isn't about clamping the shooter's arm. A fair example here is taking a swipe at the ball, and making unnecessary contact with the shooter's arm.

If I'm reading the replies correctly, I see there are several that would never, ever wait to see if a shot falls to determine whether a foul is called. Others are simply saying, "it depends."

There's been some talk about advantageous vs. marginal contact. Let me see if this changes anyone's answers...

A-1 shoots, B-2 makes marginal contact on A-1's arm, no whistle yet, ball bounces off the rim, tweet.

Does that make a difference in your original answer?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There's been some talk about advantageous vs. marginal contact. Let me see if this changes anyone's answers...

A-1 shoots, B-2 makes marginal contact on A-1's arm, no whistle yet, ball bounces off the rim, tweet.

Does that make a difference in your original answer?

Nope. I consider the result of the play. I will also say the closer to the basket this is more likely to be the case. The further away from the basket it is more likely I will not care about the ball going in. Reason, there is more contact around the basket legal and illegal. I might have to take an extra second to determine if that contact near the basket made much of a difference.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

1) There's been some talk about advantageous vs. marginal contact.


2)A-1 shoots, B-2 makes marginal contact on A-1's arm, no whistle yet, ball bounces off the rim, tweet.
Does that make a difference in your original answer?

1) Advantageous contact = illegal contact
Marginal contact = a judgment call as to whether the contact was illegal or incidental
It's that simple, bainsey.

2) The original answers do not apply to this situation because this situation in no way resembles your original situation. In your original situation, YOU told us the contact was illegal. That means there was NO judgment needed on our part. Illegal contact is a foul.


You're not offering clarity at all imo. Instead, you're putting forth 2 very different situations for comment.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

A-1 shoots, B-2 makes marginal contact on A-1's arm, no whistle yet, ball bounces off the rim, tweet.

It is, was and always will be a judgment call as to whether that "marginal" contact was illegal or incidental in nature. Having said that, in my experience a very slight contact on a player's shooting arm can greatly influence the accuracy of the shot, and especially so on a jump shot. The oldest trick in the book is a defender making a quick tap on the shooting elbow on a jump shot. That quick, wee touch can put the shot into the sixth row. Sooooo.....basically you have to make up your mind as to whether your "marginal" contact affected the shot or not. If you decide it did, the marginal contact should be ruled illegal contact. If you decide it didn't, the marginal contact should be called incidental contact. But....as I said above, it doesn't take much contact on a players shooting arm to affect a shot. If I see contact on the shooting arm on a jump shot, I'll usually call the foul. You also have to make the same decision for contact on a shooter's arm when the shooter is taking it to the hole. In that case, it might not be a bad idea to wait a beat to see whether the ball goes or not. The same holds true for contact on the shooter's body. No matter what though, it still remains as being a straight judgment call. The biggest recommendation I can give anyone is to just try to be as consistent as possible at both ends of the court from beginning to end.

There ya go, bainsey. I tried to answer both of your questions.