Contact, Wait for It, Miss, Tweet.

[zm1283]

This garbage about waiting to see if the ball goes in and passing on a foul if it does is a reason why we as officials get a bad rap from outside observers. Quit trying to be so damn philosophical and just call illegal contact as it should be called. If the ball goes in in the situation in the OP, tough luck for Team B who fouled the shooter I guess. Maybe they'll learn next time.

In our area, we have been instructed to call illegal contact and throw "advantage/disadvantage" out the window. We are told that we will never get in trouble for calling fouls as opposed to "passing" on "marginal contact". Also, I VERY rarely if ever hear from coaches during games that we're calling the game too tightly.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This garbage about waiting to see if the ball goes in and passing on a foul if it does is a reason why we as officials get a bad rap from outside observers. Quit trying to be so damn philosophical and just call illegal contact as it should be called. If the ball goes in in the situation in the OP, tough luck for Team B who fouled the shooter I guess. Maybe they'll learn next time.

In our area, we have been instructed to call illegal contact and throw "advantage/disadvantage" out the window. We are told that we will never get in trouble for calling fouls as opposed to "passing" on "marginal contact". Also, I VERY rarely if ever hear from coaches during games that we're calling the game too tightly.

Wow. Could not disagree more.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

This garbage about waiting to see if the ball goes in and passing on a foul if it does is a reason why we as officials get a bad rap from outside observers. Quit trying to be so damn philosophical and just call illegal contact as it should be called. If the ball goes in in the situation in the OP, tough luck for Team B who fouled the shooter I guess. Maybe they'll learn next time.

In our area, we have been instructed to call illegal contact and throw "advantage/disadvantage" out the window. We are told that we will never get in trouble for calling fouls as opposed to "passing" on "marginal contact". Also, I VERY rarely if ever hear from coaches during games that we're calling the game too tightly.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by zm1283

In our area, we have been instructed to call illegal contact and throw "advantage/disadvantage" out the window.

So, uh, how do you distinguish between incidental contact and illegal contact?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, uh, how do you distinguish between incidental contact and illegal contact?

They don't. In other news, they average 70 FTs per game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

They don't. In other news, they average 70 FTs per game.

I'm just picturing all the layups that get taken away when the dribbler beats his defender but gets slapped on the arm as he goes by.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So, uh, how do you distinguish between incidental contact and illegal contact?

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.

[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 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