Make the call
 

A1 on a fastbreak tableside at the FT line extended with no defender in front of him is still dribbling, about two strides from gathering. At the same time A2 on the opposite side of the frontcourt at the 3 pt line is running slow to hold off B1 from making a play. Frustrated B1 (down by 20 late in the 2nd half) shoves the much smaller A2 in the back & displaced him about 2 feet.
How would you handle this, by rule?
And, do we have any options?

By rule: Intentional foul, no basket. A2 shoots two shots.

Two strides is a little much to hold off on this, but some would obviously say to hold your whistle a second to sell counting the basket while calling the foul. I don't think I could justify it.

OTOH, I'd probably be paying so close attention to the foul that I'd lose track of when the gather began, and if A1 even looked like he was gathering, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to A and count the basket.

There is a case case play where there is an obvious breakaway when the defensive coach says something to earn a technical foul. The ruling is to delay the whistle until the layup is attempted, count the basket (if it goes), and then call the T. I could see extending the concept to this play and to delay the whistle until the shooter has started the shooting motion....then count the shot and call the intentional foul.

That's 10.4.1 F, and I agree with Camron. I say this applies to tref's sitch. Hold the whistle until the shot is released, and call the foul. It's unfair to penalize the offense by blowing the play dead on an obvious scoring opportunity.

Withhold Whistle ...
 

10.4.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when
the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is
being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How
should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing
the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then
sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a
technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be
ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be
sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

For the record, I handled it like Snaqs suggested. My partner took Camron & bainsey stance. When the play occurred the delayed unsporting technical rule came to mind before I called the intentional personal. But a technical is not an intentional personal. As I originally stated A1 was still dribbling & the shove by B1 was so over the top I couldn't see waiting to count the basket then coming back to call an INT as an option. Those who would delay the whistle, rules reference please...

The reference is 10.4.1F. There is NOTHING in the rule book to support this case. But the case give the philosophy of the NFHS that egregious infractions that occur when an obvious score is about to occur should be delayed until the shot is taken such that the act is maximally penalized and/or that the scoring team is not disadvantaged unfairly.

I believe there is also a case for a player deliberately leaving the court on such a situation. IIRC, the NFHS also ruled that the violation call be delayed until the bucket is scored.

Another case of a delayed violation...FT lane violations by the defense. A bit different, but still an example of waiting to address a violation.

We have to use the concepts presented by the cases we have to rule on the actions in a game. We really don't want a casebook with EVERYTHING spelled out as some seem to demand. That would be unimaginably large.

Excellent points Cameron. I understand the delay for an unsporting technical & FT violations, but I fail to see how that relates to live ball contact.
Are there any caseplays that support a delayed whistle for illegal contact?

If B1 would've hit (flagrant) A2 instead of shoving him (intentional) would you delay that as well?

There is no support to delay calling an intentional personal foul. The case play for an unsporting technical is specific to unsporting conduct/behavior.

To me this would be no different than any other personal foul away from the ball. You need to determine (with help from your crew if necessary) if the habitual shooting motion had started.

I doubt a player at the FT line extended is two strides from beginning his shpooting motion. If you can hold the whistle a split second while seeing the whole play, you can count the basket and award the INT. I think this is a HTBT in order to know what the proper call is.

You don't have to wait "until the shot is released." As soon as A1 picks up his dribble, he's in the act of shooting. That's all you need.

You should've seen the caliber of ball I was working! Bad basketball :(
I understand the HTBT thing, but the play happened just as I described.

Fine. INT foul, no basket. Really no need for discussion, is there? I mean if we can't discuss the possibility of him being in the act, then by rules where he's at or what he's doing is of no consequence. Nothing matters but the foul.

Just want to make sure that what I did is correct, by rule. So if/when it happens in a game that matters, I can feel comfortable with my decision.

Thanks for everyones input!!

+1

Besides, who could have a legitimate beef with this one? The team that committed the foul? "You should have blown the play dead!"???

If your team commits such a foul at this time, there's not much of a leg to stand on, IMO.

Some coaches know the rules...

Exactly. And some coaches have videos they send in to supervisors. And if they send in a tape showing A1 is still dribbling when B2 fouls A2 then you have 1 of 2 problems with purposely delaying the whistle, integrity or rules knowledge.

The rule book is a pretty strong leg, IMO. How close is close enough? If A1 is near the division line when A2 gets plowed, you still going to hold your whistle?

Intentional fouls usually need to be grabbed immediately to prevent escalation, especially when committed out of frustration. And frankly, I'd rather fall back on the rules than a questionable interpretation of a barely related case play.

I agree....there is only so long you can wait. If the ball is at the division line, you probably can't wait.

Not to nit-pick but exactly how long can we wait to call an INT off-ball personal foul?

After the kid retaliates & jumps in the offenders face? Now we gotta false double.

After a punch is thrown? Now we have to upgrade what was an INT to a flagrant & both kids are tossed.

In my sitch, does the team up by 20 really need a bucket, 2 shots & the ball back?

Not necessarily. This is more about rule philosophy. I believe we all have solid knowledge.

The aforementioned case play makes it clear to me that you can't let the defense take away an obvious scoring opportunity from the offense. If the coach has such a problem with it that he would send in a tape to your supervisor, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Either the supervisor is going to back up your ruling, or at least talk with you about it. Either way, someone is going to learn something, and make a greater stride toward everyone getting on the same page.

My supervisors aren't going to accept me "learning something" in a real game that I already should have known.

The exception for a delayed whistle applies to unsporting behavior that is penalized by a technical foul. It's a specific case play. Extrapolating that to this play has no basis in the rule book because you already have rules and case plays that tell you how to handle personal fouls away from the ball when a shot is imminent.

Even the ones who try to tie delayed whistles for an unsporting technical foul or defensive FT violation to live ball INT fouls?

Coming back to get a "ref you suck" is much different than coming back to get an illegal physical act that already occured.

No disrespect but do you work levels higher than HS? If so, you must be really cool with your supervisor! Because I dont want any "talks" with mine except for, "you've shown improvement" or "I have more games for you to work."
My bosses expect staff to already know these things...

The rules and case book plays are not an exhaustive list of what you can/should call or not call. They are a framework showing you the direction and philosophy of how the game should generally be played what should be called. Yes, you should call plays that match the cases as they are presented in the casebok but when plays occur that fall between the cases, you have to extrapolate the spirit of the rules/cases to apply to the situation you have. Almost every rule, and many case plays are not written considering all contingencies...they're written as examples.

If you only made calls on plays that exactly match the case book, you'd be missing a lot of calls. Again, case book plays are not "specific" but are examples. You shouldn't limit yourself to applying the concepts in the case only to situations where the exact same events occur.

As for the delayed T, there is no rules basis for that case play either....but it is there.

There is a case play for a delayed T whether there is a rule for it or not, pure and simple.

There are rules and cases plays for personal fouls away from the ball when shots are imminent or in flight.

I fail to see the grey that needs interpreting.

None taken, and negative. Truth be told, I wish I had more "talks." Feedback is a little scarce in these parts. (That's another story.)

I see your point, though. We're at completely different levels with different expectations. I've never had to deal with the sitch in question -- who knows if I ever will -- so if you have a case play that counters the aforementioned, I'll be glad to hear it.

Cool!

At the HS level the assigning body needs us just as much as we need them. Higher levels need only one misapplication of the rules to suspend you or even worse, let you go. Afterall, there are many new prospects each year. So the accountability factor is much different.

I hadn't seen that play before either. Thats why I brought it here after my partner (higher level than myself) questioned it. I wanted to make sure I got it right should it ever come up again.

I do not have a caseplay to counter the aforementioned... but the aforementioned clearly applies to non-contact unsporting technical fouls. And we all know an INT personal is not in the same family as Ts.

Where is JR when you need him?? There may be a caseplay from '77 that deals with this :D

Good ol' supply and demand! It belongs right up there with death and taxes.

I'm not totally sold on that, yet.

For me, it comes back to advantage/disadvantage. Does the contact create an unfair advantage? Will blowing the whistle compromise a fairly earned advantage?

Now, if there's case play that soundly states the play must be blown dead immediately, then my point is moot. That's all I'm stating. I'll defer to the senior statesmen of this board for such a ruling.

Look up personal fouls that occur when a shot is imminent or in flight. That will give you what you need.

Never during my travels have I heard to withhold a whistle on an intentioal foul based on advantage/disadvantage.

Player Out Of Bounds Leaving The Court ???
 

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

No, there's no case play that says that. There's a rule. The case play that says the opposite applies to technical fouls, not intentional fouls.

All the case plays you need are there to determine how to administer the play when a personal foul occurs before a try has begun; and they all comply with the rule.

The "unfair advantage" is punished by two shots and the ball, per the rule. It's why you don't just go with a common foul. It's the same as if B1 had fouled A1 rather than A2. If he shoved A1 two steps before he could begin gathering the dribble, would you give him the shot anyway?

Agree. IMHO the problem with holding the whistle in this situation is that you run the risk of retaliation and other "extra curricular" activities that this type of foul may cause, especially since you said it was already a 20 point game.

So what infer from you is, on a common foul, you can hold the whistle, but on an intentional foul, it's immediate. If that's what you're saying, what rule citations are there, or is this more of a gut feeling?

Where in the world do you get that inference?

I don't know where you got that inference from.

Bottom-line, on personal fouls away from the ball you need to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. Concentrate on and master that before before trying to get all cutesy with delayed whistles and being "fair".

Your words...

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.

Why would you consider calling a foul away from the play like this anything but an intentional/flagrant foul? An opponent trying to commit a foul away form the play like this is a textbook example of a foul that "neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position," and it's the only way I'd put air in the whistle.

Where'd you get the idea that I would?

An inference from your inference...curious why you'd ask the difference between a common and intentional foul. In the scenario presented, if there's a call to be made, the only one to be made is an intentional or flagrant foul. A common foul should not enter the equation.

I agree. But, I was specifically talking about whether to hold the whistle, and when one would hold it.

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.

Context:

1. I said nothing about holding the whistle for a common foul.
2. The context is that this was a response to your post below.

My point was the "unfair advantage" aspect is taken care of by the added penalty of the possession. Note there's nothing about holding or whitholding your whistle on either foul.

You hold your whistle only long enough to determine if it was really a foul; which will typically take longer for a common foul than for an intentional foul.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.anchoredbygrace.com/smileys/boots.gif

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Except, there is no rule to support even the unsporting behavior case. By rule, the ball became dead at the time of the unsporting behavior. But yet, the case plays says to wait. But with what rule to support it? None. So, by your standard, even that case is incorrect and shouldn't be followed.

That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

You don't need me to look it up for you, do you?

The point is, the rule is clear and so is the penalty. Dancing around asking "which rule" when the rule is clear just doesn't work.

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

In the real world, your supervisor is not going to sit around while you sift through Camron's 4 paragraphs of unrelated rulings and case plays to explain why you are allowing a basket when an obvious intentional foul occured while A1 was still dribbling. He going to look at the tape, see an obvious foul, then see A1 take 2 more dribbles and score and then see you whistle the foul. And he is going to say "WTF!!! Call the obvious, enforce the rules, and quit trying to be cute"

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether or not you would have the same delayed enforcement if A1 were the one who was intentionally fouled and then took 2 more dribbles before shooting and scoring.

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.

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.

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

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? :eek: 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

I don't know why you keep harping on this. Asked and answered, counselor.

I should've gone with our standard line, "In my judgment..."

Because when the coach sends the tape in and it's clear that A1 took two dribbles after B1 pushed A2, and you counted the basket, you're going to have to answer to your supervisor.

You'll have one of three problems.

1. Integrity.
2. Judgment.
3. Rules knowledge.

The fourth option is that the supervisor will agree with Camron's expansion of the TF case play to apply to intentional fouls.

I would much rather have a supervisor tell me I should go with Camron's reasoning than explain to me why my rules knowledge needs some work.

+1

When I finally have this play in five to seven years, I'll know what to do.

You've never had an intentional foul on a break-away? :confused:

I just had one in camp 2 weeks ago. Had at least 2 last season. It is not uncommon.

Again, what does judgement have to do with it? Intentional foul, 2 dribbles, shot, made basket. What is the ruling? It has already been determined that a foul has to be called and it has already been determined there were 2 dribbles before A1 began his try.

And notice, I've never once said your ruling is wrong. I've only said that you need to be able to explain it. And if you can't explain it here clearly and precisely with the help of the backspace key and delete button then you are going to have a real problem when you are on the court.

Every play I discuss on these boards I discuss as if I had to explain my decision to a coach or a supervisor. I'm in to real-world application. So that's why I keeping harping about it. Because calls you make reflect upon not only yourself, they also reflect upon the crew, the crew chief, and the supervisor.

yeah if theres a question about the foul. a1 is at the FT line extended you see an off ball foul GO GET IT! maybe B1 was attempting to stop the play?