Make the call

[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.

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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)?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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)?

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.

[Adam]

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 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.

[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 BadNewsRef

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

The play I cited: Foul on B-2.

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

I take the stance they have told you which situations they apply to.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

The play I cited: Foul on B-2.

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

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

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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

Are you here to play word games or talk rules?

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

His point was, he's only applying it to the specific situations the case book tells us to apply it in.

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

[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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

...

Originally Posted by bainsey

...


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

...

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

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Better.

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.