The play I cited: Foul on B-2.

The play you cited: That depends. What's the whistle for?

Yet another false assumption. You don't know what they (whoever "they" are) told me.

Because the committee has only written the cases to apply to non-contact situations. I could speculate as to why, but I'd be as likely to be wrong as right.

Possibilities:
1. The penalty for a violation is simply possession. If you call a defensive violation while the offense is about to shoot, there is no penalty at all; only benefit.
2. Sporting behavior is an emphasis, and ensuring the maximum penalty is desired.
3. Contact situations need whistles as soon as the foul is recognized to prevent escalation. They all have sufficient penalties in and of themselves.

Again, only speculation.

I'm talking about the same play. Your whistles comes after B2 releases his shot, does his shot count?


"They" is the rules book. Are you here to play word games or talk rules?

You don't find it to be a flaw that they don't address all infractions in other case plays (placed in their appropriate location in the case book, of course)?

"They" told all of us, not just you; and we all have access to the same information. His point was, he's only applying it to the specific situations the case book tells us to apply it in.

I'm not a plumber (no offense to plumbers). If they don't address the other infractions then I assume they want the rules applied as written.

I already know that if a personal foul occurs while A1 is dribbling that A1 will not be allowed to take 2 more dribbles, shoot, and score. Once I blow my whistle for the foul, no matter how late I blow, I know I must determine the status of the ball AT THE TIME OF THE INFRACTION and adjudicate accordingly.

I know that if A1 is driving to the basket and Coach B commits an unsporting act that I am to withhold my whistle until A1 shoots and then blow my whistle and assess a technical foul.

I know I can never, ever get in trouble for doing the above. I don't have to explain a thing to anyone for the first and I can cite 10.4.1 for the second.

Of course not, there's no shot. Foul on B-2.


The latter, sir. I've never heard of a rules book referred to with a plural pronoun.

Yes, of course. My point is, if it applies to one type of advantageous/disadvantageous infraction, it should apply to all.

OK, the rulemakers. I used "they" in direct response to your post. ;)

Just b/c you believe it should apply to all infractions doesn't mean that's how you get to apply it. If you follow what is already written for you in the rule and case books you can't get in trouble.

Maybe, but the rules book is written by a "they" composed of a rules committee. Looks like you're playing games.

Again, the violation makes sense to delay because the only penalty is possession, so stopping a breakaway layup with a violation would come with no penalty without the case play.

Delaying an intentional foul isn't necessary because the penalty is already deemed sufficient by "they," or they'd tell us otherwise (IMO) just as they told us otherwise for both violations and technical fouls. If one case was sufficient to delay all defensive infractions, they wouldn't have two.

Better. :D

Anyway, what you call "plumbing," I call "questioning." If I see what I believe to be an inconsistency, I don't drop my head, put my hands in my pockets, and mumble, "well, that's just the way it is."

Instead, I ask questions. When you ask questions, there are two possible positive outcomes: You learn something about the present procedure, and/or, you set in motion a positive change. Perhaps that could be a point of this forum, as well.

So we are in agreement that just because you blew the whistle late it doesn't mean that B2's shot still counts. You are enforcing the foul that occurred when A1 had the ball. You just had a (exteeeemely) patient whistle.

But patient whistles have nothing to do with the original scenario. In the original scenario a foul clearly occurred while A1 was still dribbling. Allowing A1 to continue dribbling and then score a basket while still enforcing the foul is a rules interpretation.

If you try to explain to your supervisor or a coach that you allowed the basket due to a patient whistle you will not have a leg to stand on.

Yes, you keep harping on that, but I never disagreed with that (nor would I). This wasn't about that.

And here is where I claim "inconsistency." I'm looking for solid reason why this only applies to certain infractions. (At least Snaqs made a valid attempt at it.)

Likely true. That doesn't mean I'm not going to question it in this forum.

"Patient whistle" is a philosophy. It's not a mechanic or a rule. It has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about a "withheld whistle". And "withhold whistle" is found in 10.4.1 and applies to unsporting technical fouls and the delayed enforcement of the infraction.

And you haven't been questioning, you've been telling how it should be enforce. But when asked to explain your stance you never gave a clear answer. You said:

Do you really think that's an acceptable answer for a coach or a supervisor?

Exactly, a "patient" whistle is used to determine whether specific contact is a foul. I can't think of a single intentional foul I've ever seen where a patient whistle was required.