Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

It's code for "all contact is a foul."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

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

And why would you be frustrated with what others listen to? One of the first lessons learned and really already knew when I became an official was you cannot listen to anyone about many things or most things.

Peace

[just another ref]

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. I am much more likely to hold the whistle for a player about to beat his man off the dribble. Defender is late with a bump or a grab. If the dribbler comes out clean and has a layup, let it go.

[tref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

There's gonna be some cheap And1s

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

There's gonna be some cheap And1s

I don't wait to see if the shot went in, I look to see if the shot is made more difficult.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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

[Tio]

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 fiasco

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Tio

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.

Been hanging around Al Battista?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

There is no way to ever truly know the effect of the contact on the shot.
Contact on the arm of the shooter may actually cause a shot to go in that would have otherwise missed. You just have to use your best judgment at the time and go with it. Some things are obvious. A player dunking can usually absorb more contact without disadvantage than one shooting a 3.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

You don't. Your inferring from my post that this was the only thing that makes me think he's a "hot shot." It's not.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Same goes for you too.

[bainsey]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

That's just terrible officiating.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

Like the guy in the Gardiner video?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Same goes for you too.

Then clarify your position. It seems like you are the one irritated, so explain what you mean? Not everyone that goes to a college camp I would even listen to in the first place. There is after all a reason they are going to the camp. It does not make them an instructor or clinician in your local area. I just was reading what you said and said was irritating, so what did we not understand?

peace

[DRJ1960]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

That's just terrible officiating.

It happens... much more than I think it should.