Make the call

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I believe we're already on the same page, sir.

A prerequisite for a delayed whistle is determining the status of the ball at the time of the foul.

The problem is you are applying delayed violations (FT violations on the defense; unsporting T's on defense during a drive to the basket) to personal fouls.

If you have a personal foul away from the ball you have to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. You are trying to apply the delayed violation rule to this scenario. It doesn't apply.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The problem is you are applying delayed violations (FT violations on the defense; unsporting T's on defense during a drive to the basket) to personal fouls.

If you have a personal foul away from the ball you have to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. You are trying to apply the delayed violation rule to this scenario. It doesn't apply.

For that matter, we have NOTHING in the rules that allow us to delay the call for the T until after the shot....but we're instructed to do just that.

In the case of a defender committing a violation away from the play in hopes of drawing a whistle to kill the play, we have directives to delay the violation (leaving the court, swinging elbows) and call it after the shot and penalize the infraction at that time (count the basket, award possession). The rules don't support it in any way, but, again, we're directed to cover it that way.

Also, the arguments about getting 2 FTs and possession being sufficient, if that were a valid argument, should apply to the case of a T if it were actually a valid argument. It's not. In fact, it would be more apropos to the case of a T given that the T allows any shooter. Yet, the NFHS deems 2 shots by any player and possession an inadequate consequence.

The rules and philosophies surrounding game situations are intended to be consistent, even if there are not case plays covering all scenarios. AFAIK, there is no specific case play covering an intentional foul away from the ball in an obvious scoring opportunity. We do have cases covering intentional fouls at the point of the play and violations (leaving the court, elbows) away from the play. As such we're left with extrapolating between case plays. We either treat it like common fouls away from the ball in absence of an obvious scoring opportunity or we treat it like all the cases covering infractions committed in the presence of an obvious scoring opportunities. This scenario falls between the specific case plays we have. We get to use our minds to decide which of the two options best fits the play.

When an undefended shot is imminent and a foul occurs, intentional or not, I'm simply not going to kill the shot unless escalation is likely. Then, if the foul MUST be called, I'll count the shot (if it goes) and then deal with the foul. I'm not talking about the play still being in the backcourt and waiting several seconds for the play to develop....you can't wait that long....but rules makers have made it clear in several situations that it is not the intent to allow the defense to take away an obvious scoring opportunity by committing an infraction away from the ball. In several rulings, they have declared that the infraction should be penalized AFTER the shot. I'm going to follow that established line of thinking in this case. In fact, the intentional foul away from the ball is more egregious than an intentional foul at the shot and deserves a greater penalty than an intentional foul at the point of the ball.

It is not my philosophy...it is the NFHS philosophy.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

...It is not my philosophy...it is the NFHS philosophy.

It's your philosophy and your interpretation. Nothing more.

If I do something not clearly supported by the rule book at least I'll own up to it as such. I have said so on a few occasions on rulings discussed in these forums. I'm not going to try to tap dance my way through a bunch of unrelated rulings and try to tie them together.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm not going to try to tap dance my way through a bunch of unrelated rulings and try to tie them together.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The problem is you are applying delayed violations (FT violations on the defense; unsporting T's on defense during a drive to the basket) to personal fouls.

If you have a personal foul away from the ball you have to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. You are trying to apply the delayed violation rule to this scenario. It doesn't apply.

True. The basic idea is that NFHS allows for a delayed whistle on noncontact situations. That's a FT violation or an unsporting technical foul. For contact situations, there is no provision for delaying the whistle.
The rules book states when the ball becomes dead and when it doesn't on such.

My advice for those wondering how to handle the sitch posed by the OP is to simply stick to the rules book and penalize accordingly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

True. The basic idea is that NFHS allows for a delayed whistle on noncontact situations. That's a FT violation or an unsporting technical foul. For contact situations, there is no provision for delaying the whistle.
The rules book states when the ball becomes dead and when it doesn't on such.

My advice for those wondering how to handle the sitch posed by the OP is to simply stick to the rules book and penalize accordingly.

Yup. Applying the case play for the unsporting technical foul to a play involving live ball intentional contact is a stretch. It may be a small stretch, but it's a stretch nonetheless, and one that could easily lead to an escalated situation before you decide to blow your whistle.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My advice for those wondering how to handle the sitch posed by the OP is to simply stick to the rules book and penalize accordingly.

That would be the wise choice, of course.

However, as Cam has articulately pointed out, we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional (unless there's something I'm missing. Feel free to cite accordingly, if so.) Conversely, we are explicitly told to hold the whistle in certain technical foul or defensive violations.

So, in a nutshell, we're not told that we can, but we're not told that we can't, either. That's typically where these "I believe it should be" viewpoints come into play, when something isn't explicit. Perhaps the answer is to get something in writing (again, if it already isn't) one way or the other.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That would be the wise choice, of course.

However, as Cam has articulately pointed out, we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional (unless there's something I'm missing. Feel free to cite accordingly, if so.) Conversely, we are explicitly told to hold the whistle in certain technical foul or defensive violations.

So, in a nutshell, we're not told that we can, but we're not told that we can't, either. That's typically where these "I believe it should be" viewpoints come into play, when something isn't explicit. Perhaps the answer is to get something in writing (again, if it already isn't) one way or the other.

Seriously? The case plays and rules don't care when the whistle blows. The ball becomes dead on contact fouls when the foul occurs. Not when the whistle blows. Without a case play directly telling you to allow the ball to remain live following a personal foul, you're on very thin ice trying to pull that off.

The rule is explicit.

And two seconds without a whistle is a long time for the player who got shoved to think you missed it and decide he needs to take care of it himself.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That would be the wise choice, of course.

However, as Cam has articulately pointed out, we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional (unless there's something I'm missing. Feel free to cite accordingly, if so.) Conversely, we are explicitly told to hold the whistle in certain technical foul or defensive violations.

So, in a nutshell, we're not told that we can, but we're not told that we can't, either. That's typically where these "I believe it should be" viewpoints come into play, when something isn't explicit. Perhaps the answer is to get something in writing (again, if it already isn't) one way or the other.

Where have you read that you can have delayed enforcement for personal fouls?

There are situations that are explicitly designated for delayed enforcement, is a personal foul of any type included in those situations?

If you want to wait to enforce an intentional foul away from the ball until A1 takes 2 more dribbles and then gathers for his shot that's fine. But at least have the guts, when your supervisor or a coach asks, to say its your own interpretation/philosophy.

And be prepared answered what you would have done had the intentional foul occurred on A1 who then took 2 more dribbles and then gathered for his shot. Would have also delayed your whistle out of "fairness"?

[Camron Rust]

You can either take a narrow view of case plays only only apply them when every single detail matches the case play or you can take a broad view of the case plays and see the concepts and philosophies in them and apply them to similar situations. I view the case plays as examples of the types of calls desired expecting officials to be able to understand ideas, not an exhaustive list of the exact situations for officials that can't think to just memorize.

By all means, if you sense escalation, you can't wait...but we were not really talking about what else might happen. We're talking about what did happen and assuming that is ALL that happened.

[MD Longhorn]

And people wonder why there's such a lack of consistency in basketball officiating. Wow. What a mess. Seems the NFHS has given the basketball officials just enough rope to hang their hat on when inventing a ruling on this case. I hate the invent-a-rule crowd. I agree you don't need caseplays to cover every situation ... but if you're going to write a caseplay that's not supported by rule - PLEASE change the rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You can either take a narrow view of case plays only only apply them when every single detail matches the case play or you can take a broad view of the case plays and see the concepts and philosophies in them and apply them to similar situations. I view the case plays as examples of the types of calls desired expecting officials to be able to understand ideas, not an exhaustive list of the exact situations for officials that can't think to just memorize.

By all means, if you sense escalation, you can't wait...but we were not really talking about what else might happen. We're talking about what did happen and assuming that is ALL that happened.

Fair enough, but the lack of a case play saying we can delay a call for any live ball contact foul leaves me unable to take that same step.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

The rule is explicit.

Citation?

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

And people wonder why there's such a lack of consistency in basketball officiating. Wow. What a mess. Seems the NFHS has given the basketball officials just enough rope to hang their hat on when inventing a ruling on this case. I hate the invent-a-rule crowd. I agree you don't need caseplays to cover every situation ... but if you're going to write a caseplay that's not supported by rule - PLEASE change the rule.

I wouldn't say this is a mess, but it certainly does expose a messy potential.

Rules are, in a nutshell, agreements. That is, it's been agreed that this is the way we're going to play, and how we're going to handle these defined situations. In this case, it's not that a rule needs to be changed, it's the penalty that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, these disagreements will continue.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Citation?


I wouldn't say this is a mess, but it certainly does expose a messy potential.

Rules are, in a nutshell, agreements. That is, it's been agreed that this is the way we're going to play, and how we're going to handle these defined situations. In this case, it's not that a rule needs to be changed, it's the penalty that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, these disagreements will continue.

There's nothing to disagree with here.

The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation. There is nothing in the book that says we can ignore that particular rule just because we think it's more fair to do so. The penalty is clearly defined, you just don't think it's enough.

The case play Camron is using applies to unsporting behavior, not contact.