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?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...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 bainsey

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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



...

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So we are in agreement that just because you blew the whistle late it doesn't mean that B2's shot still counts.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

...
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.)

...

"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:

...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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

"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.