Make the call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Why not? I did. That's how we back up our opinions -- with facts.

Three reasons:
1. I don't have my book with me right now. I'm at work, the book is at home, which is full of boxes and junk since we just moved.
2. I've sufficiently described the rule that you could find it if you wanted to; if it mattered to you.
3. It's a basic rule that I'm sure you already know. The ball becomes dead when a foul is committed: unless, on a foul by the defense, the habitual shooting motion has begun for a try.

I'm not confused about why you want to ignore the rule and delay the whistle; I'm confused about how you can possibly think the rule is unclear.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And he is going to say "WTF!!! Call the obvious, enforce the rules, and quit trying to be cute"

Again with the word "cute." Since when is using your brains "cute?"

To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

I'm not sure why you need explicit instructions to follow the rules as written.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Again with the word "cute." Since when is using your brains "cute?"

To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

You're right about HTBT as far as call it, not call it. But to say you would delay your whistle, allow the basket, and then enforce the intentional foul has absolutely no rules or case book basis. But now you are changing your reason for delaying the whistle from "fairness" to "based upon chances of retaliation".

And am I reading correctly that in certain situations you would allow A1 to take 2 more dribbles, shoot and score, and then call an intentional foul for what happened during the dribble? What would be your determining factor(s) to do that? One game you kill the play immediately. The next you wouldn't call anything at all. Then the next game you allow 2 more dribbles, a basket, then enforce an intentional foul. Would you consider that consistent enforcement of the rules? What trouble or beef would you get into if every time you see an intentional foul you whistle and enforce it based upon the status of the ball? How much explaining to coaches and supervisors would you have to do then as opposed to telling your supervisor it was an HTBT situation as to why you did it one way one game and another way the next.

And to say, as you did to Snaqs, that case plays from the case book are not legitimate citations is also wrong. And intentionals on break-aways happen more than once in a blue moon. This not some abstract concept we are discussing.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And am I reading correctly that in certain situations you would allow A1 to take 2 more dribbles, shoot and score, and then call an intentional foul for what happened during the dribble?

It would have to be an extremely rare cirumstance, far too rare to even worry about.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And to say, as you did to Snaqs, that case plays from the case book are not legitimate citations is also wrong.

I didn't, and would never, say that.

I said, "we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional." I asked for a citation that states otherwise, and as of yet, no one has presented such.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm confused about how you can possibly think the rule is unclear.

Didn't say that, either. It's not the rule that's unclear. It's whether to blow the whistle immediately. Are you sure that's in the rules?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...Didn't say that, either. It's not the rule that's unclear. It's whether to blow the whistle immediately. Are you sure that's in the rules?

Blowing the whistle is not the issue. Having delayed whistle or immediate whistle does not change when the foul occurred.

You say that if there is an intentional foul on--a)A2 away from the ball or b)A1 who is dribbling--that you can and would allow, in both circustances, A1 to take 2 more dribbles and then shoot and make a basket and that you would count the points and enforce the intentional foul that occurred before A1 took his last 2 dribbles.

That's delayed enforcement. There is no citation in the rule or case books that allows for delayed enforcement of a personal foul. Only unsporting T's, free throws, et al. Non-contact violations as cited in 9-3-3 of the case book.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

There is no citation in the rule or case books that allows for delayed enforcement of a personal foul.

True, as there is nothing that says a whistle needs to be immediate, either. Consider this:

Point-guard A-1 is dribbling up the court. Defender B-2 bumps A-1, who appears to keep his dribble and stride at first (no whistle), keeps dribbling for 1-2 seconds, but then it becomes clear the contact hindered A-1, and he loses his dribble. B-2 steals the ball easily.

No whistle now?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Didn't say that, either. It's not the rule that's unclear. It's whether to blow the whistle immediately. Are you sure that's in the rules?

That's why I didn't worry about trying to find a rule about when to blow the whistle. You can find that in the mechanics.

The applicable rule is when the ball becomes dead, after which the basket cannot count. When you blow the whistle is irrelevant.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

True, as there is nothing that says a whistle needs to be immediate, either. Consider this:

Point-guard A-1 is dribbling up the court. Defender B-2 bumps A-1, who appears to keep his dribble and stride at first (no whistle), keeps dribbling for 1-2 seconds, but then it becomes clear the contact hindered A-1, and he loses his dribble. B-2 steals the ball easily.

No whistle now?

Ok, I'll play apples and oranges with you.

Let's say B2 had immediately launched a shot after stealling the ball because it was near the end of a quarter. And your whistle comes after the shot has been released. Are you still counting B2's basket?

You are applying the following concept: What was the ball's status when the whistle was blown when the correct concept is: What was the ball's status when the foul occurred.

You need to completely understand the concept of the ball's status during a foul before you start coming up with obscure interpretations. With Camron, although I disagree with him, at least I know he knows the rules in regards the ball's status when a foul occurs. He is just choosing to apply case 10.4.1 to a personal foul.

Case 9.3.3 tells you about non-contact violations and case 10.4.1 tells you about unsporting T's. Why are you insisting on adding in personal fouls?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Case 9.3.3 tells you about non-contact violations and case 10.4.1 tells you about unsporting T's. Why are you insisting on adding in personal fouls?

Two reasons:
*They're all defensive infractions that affect offensive play, and
*There's nothing that in the rule/case book that says we CAN'T apply such rules in these situations. It only says you CAN apply them in situations you cite.

Ultimately, if the rulemakers want/don't want these to apply to all infractions, it should be in writing, one way or the other.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Two reasons:
*They're all defensive infractions that affect offensive play, and
*There's nothing that in the rule/case book that says we CAN'T apply such rules in these situations. It only says you CAN apply them in situations you cite.

Ultimately, if the rulemakers want/don't want these to apply to all infractions, it should be in writing, one way or the other.

Again, you're not applying a rule, you're applying an unrelated case play. Since the case play directly contradicts the written rules, I'm only going to apply it to the specific situations authorized by the case play.

Like I said before, if it's close enough that it's hard to know, I'll give the benefit to the shot. Two dribbles isn't close, IMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Two reasons:
*They're all defensive infractions that affect offensive play, and
*There's nothing that in the rule/case book that says we CAN'T apply such rules in these situations. It only says you CAN apply them in situations you cite.

Ultimately, if the rulemakers want/don't want these to apply to all infractions, it should be in writing, one way or the other.

I take the stance they have told you which situations they apply to. If the rules makers wanted them to apply to personal fouls they would have put it in writing.

If you are going to give A1 2 more dribbles before shooting and scoring then enforce an intentional foul that occurred while he was still dribbling more power to you. But you better be able to explain it and you better do it the same every time.

You keep up bringing up "whistles". Whistles have nothing to do with this play. It's a simple question:

B2 commits an intentional foul on any Team A players while A1 is dribbling on a clear break-away. After the intentional foul occurs A1 takes 2 more dribbles, shoots, and scores. How do you enforce/administer the foul?

You cannot say it depends on possible retaliation or "HTBT". We are talking straight rules interpretation.

Based on what you have been posting you are confusing a patient whistle (Start, Develop, Finish) with "delayed enforcement" and "withheld whistles".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

True, as there is nothing that says a whistle needs to be immediate, either. Consider this:

Point-guard A-1 is dribbling up the court. Defender B-2 bumps A-1, who appears to keep his dribble and stride at first (no whistle), keeps dribbling for 1-2 seconds, but then it becomes clear the contact hindered A-1, and he loses his dribble. B-2 steals the ball easily.

No whistle now?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ok, I'll play apples and oranges with you.

Let's say B2 had immediately launched a shot after stealling the ball because it was near the end of a quarter. And your whistle comes after the shot has been released. Are you still counting B2's basket?

...

How are you enforcing the foul on this play? You brought up the scenario.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, you're not applying a rule, you're applying an unrelated case play. Since the case play directly contradicts the written rules, I'm only going to apply it to the specific situations authorized by the case play.

Fair enough. What I'm asking is, why does this case play only apply to some infrations, and not others?

If the case book recognizes that calling a defensive infraction puts the offense at an disadvantage, then why does it only apply to technical fouls and certain violations?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Fair enough. What I'm asking is, why does this case play only apply to some infrations, and not others?

If the case book recognizes that calling a defensive infraction puts the offense at an disadvantage, then why does it only apply to technical fouls and certain violations?

Because that's what the rules makers wanted to address.

The rules makers put in a case play (10.4.1) that has no clear rules support. It's more prudent to narrowly apply that case play than to expand it to unrelated infractions.