Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 800861)

Can someone tell me what that means? How do you determine fouls without consideration for what is not a foul?

Peace

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 800854)

I guess this is what is frustrating me. We have a lot of what I would call "hot shot" refs in our association who are going to college camps in the summer, then bringing in the principles they learn there and trying to apply them and teach them to younger officials. We had a scrimmage the other night with 6 or 7 JV officials listening to this one varsity official who had gone to his first college camp the previous summer (and who got some JUCO games for the first time this year) throwing out these concepts as if we were supposed to call the game the same for HS as they are taught for college. It's frustrating.

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800869)

With regard to a patient whistle, invariably the idea of waiting to see if the shot is good or not comes up. This, to me is not something that should ever happen.

Originally Posted by tref (Post 800870)

There's gonna be some cheap And1s :eek:

Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 800869)

With regard to a patient whistle, invariably the idea of waiting to see if the shot is good or not comes up. This, to me is not something that should ever happen. The contact on the shot must be judged on its own merit and the result is what it is.

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 800834)

Was talking to some reffing buddies of mine who have attended several camps over the last few years. These two concepts seem to be the most common concepts they bring home from the college camps they go to.

We were talking about whether these two concepts are, overall, making the game of basketball more physical and making it hard for players to adjust to the way the game is called.

Personally, I'm torn. I understand the concept of trying to see the whole play through before calling a foul in order to determine whether or not the contact had an impact on the play, but I think that also opens up a lot of grey area. A player has the right to shoot the ball without being illegally contacted by his opponent. If he plays through that contact and happens to make the shot, the rules say he should be rewarded for doing that, not penalized by having an official swallow the whistle.

I think perhaps it also makes it difficult for players to understand the way the game is being called. If A1 gets B1 on the arm, but B1 makes the shot, and then on the other end of the floor, there is similar contact, but A1 misses and there's a foul, it really seems like A1 is being allowed to play more physical.

I dunno. This is all just a bunch of jumbled up thoughts in my head. I'm certainly not saying it has to be one way or the other. And I actually may have the concepts completely wrong. I haven't made it to a college camp yet. This is just based on several chats with my reffing buddies who have made it there.

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Tio (Post 800875)

Let's be clear... fouls are fouls. A patient whistle helps you see and process the entire play. Sometimes we have marginal contact where a no call is the right call for the game.

I would caution you against using absolutes on these terms. On some plays you may need a faster whistle tempo than others. Whistle tempo needs to patient, yet not indecisive. Keep in mind that you also "tell a story" with your whistle tempo... typically we pregame to have secondar tempo on plays outside your primary. If you are quick on plays in your secondary it can cause interesting crew dynamics. Just some food for thought.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 800872)

I agree if you are only waiting on the shot to be complete, but the reality is you sometimes do not know if there is really an affect of the contact until you see what happens with that shot. The best example is a jump shot there very little contact and affect the trajectory of a shot, you might not know until you see how short the shot falls or not. I know many that wait to see if the ball was lost, a violation was committed before we call a foul in favor of a ball handler, so why would we exclude what happens on a shot?

Peace

Originally Posted by tref (Post 800858)

Why do you have to be a "hot shot" because you're investing in your career?

At least they are bringing the info home, afterall, they could just hoard it to themselves.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 800863)

So if someone goes to camps and is actively getting told what they can improve on, they are a "hot shot?"

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 800883)

I've seen the most respected officials in our area hold their whistle on a shot, the ball bounces on the rim once, twice, thrice, wait for it, and drops off. Tweet. It certainly has its influence when others do it that way.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 800883)

I've seen the most respected officials in our area hold their whistle on a shot, the ball bounces on the rim once, twice, thrice, wait for it, and drops off. Tweet. It certainly has its influence when others do it that way.

Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 800882)

Same goes for you too.

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 800885)

That's just terrible officiating.