Contact, Wait for It, Miss, Tweet.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I agree. Judgment is a huge part of officiating.

The OP talks about "advantageous contact." Well, what's advantageous can be a matter or opinion and judgment. In some cases, whether or not the ball goes in can be part of deciding whether or not the contact was indeed advantageous.

In certain situations, I will factor in whether or not the ball went in. And I think this is what the OP was getting at. Obvious contact, of course, you have a whistle no matter what. But there are instances where there is marginal contact and you have to decide whether or not it's advantageous.

Sigh.....

You were already told in the original post that the contact was advantageous. Bainsey already made that decision for you. That was his opinion and judgment. Are you saying that bainsey lied to you...and us?

RIF!