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 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