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

[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

[rockchalk jhawk]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I would say it's more of a concept that is used at the college level and if applied the same at the HS level you may have problems.

I have found that college big men expect and actually like to play through more contact.

I haven't read all the comments as I'm on my way out the door for the day, but I think this comment is spot on. Working at both levels I've had college guys who get pissed when I call a foul and don't let the play finish out, while at the high school level the powers that be maintain that "a foul is a foul".

You have to know and understand your audience and who you're working for. Expectations can and do change from level to level.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockchalk jhawk

while at the high school level the powers that be maintain that "a foul is a foul".

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

Peace

[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."

[tref]

I think the patient whistle is great for all levels of play.
I prefer to be late & right vs. quick & wrong any day!

[DRJ1960]

For a lot of folks "patient whistle" means no blood, no foul.

[rockyroad]

You really need to understand that those concepts are mainly applied to NCAA games, and are not necessarily NFHS principles. I don't disagree with using them in NFHS games...just understand that the level of contact needed to impact a play is considerably less in HS games than it is in NCAA games. Maybe in some of the 6A/7A games where there are a number of D-1 and D-2 caliber players on the court, but most HS games can not and should not be called like an NCAA game.

So the principles are sound and valid...how we apply those principle may not be.

[Scrapper1]

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread, so I'm going to just add my two cents to a couple of other people's excellent comments.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

No it is not when you understand the rules that are in place.

I agree with this 100%. BY RULE, contact that does not hinder a player from performing normal movements is NOT a foul. That's specifically written in the rules. The patient whistle often (not always, but often) gives you an extra half-second to determine if that little bump gave either player an advantage not intended by rule.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I think there are officials that take the concept too far...and assume since the shooter made a shot, he was not disadvantaged.

I agree with this 100%. For a few years, everybody at camp was talking about not giving the "cheap and-1". And what they were really saying was "don't give and-1s". This led to a lot of officials who think the only reason to call a foul during a try is because the shot missed. But as APG implies, a try can be made much more difficult by a defender's contact and that's a foul -- even if the try is subsequently successful.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

just understand that the level of contact needed to impact a play is considerably less in HS games than it is in NCAA games.

I agree with this 100%. If the contact impacts the play, then it's a foul. But a small bump that causes a freshman girl to travel will not even be felt by a college senior on his way to dunking the ball. One is a foul, one is not. A patient whistle allows you to determine which one is NOT the foul.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

You really need to understand that those concepts are mainly applied to NCAA games, and are not necessarily NFHS principles. I don't disagree with using them in NFHS games...just understand that the level of contact needed to impact a play is considerably less in HS games than it is in NCAA games. Maybe in some of the 6A/7A games where there are a number of D-1 and D-2 caliber players on the court, but most HS games can not and should not be called like an NCAA game.

So the principles are sound and valid...how we apply those principle may not be.

Exactly.

The suggestion that these concepts are "ruining the game" is beyond silly to me. They are good concepts and the way games on all levels should be officiated IMO. But you also must recognize that the level of contact needed to impact a play differs based on the relative skill level, strength, and body control at various levels.

What really ruins games, at least for me, is officials that constantly have whistles on marginal contact that does not create an advantage. Not only does it ruin the flow of the game, it also does a disservice to player development as kids come to expect to be bailed out by a whistle rather than learn how to play through marginal contact that inevitably occurs as they move up to higher levels of play.

[dsqrddgd909]

Fascinating thread.

Couple of thoughts from a newer official who refs mostly girls/boys JV.

1. Our state association administrator for basketball has clearly stated that the #1 complaint she hears is too FEW fouls are being called. She does not believe that foul calls are game interrupters, in fact she dislikes the term a great deal. She believes that the more contact we pass on, particularly early in a game, the greater chance of rough play later.

2. I played HS ball about a jillion years ago. The game is substantially rougher in two areas: post play and boxing out.

[tref]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

The suggestion that these concepts are "ruining the game" is beyond silly to me. They are good concepts and the way games on all levels should be officiated IMO. But you also must recognize that the level of contact needed to impact a play differs based on the relative skill level, strength, and body control at various levels.

+1

Same holds true for male vs female games. Had a JUCO coach begging for a ticky tack, he told me "that's a foul!" I said you are absolutely correct... if this were a 8th grade girls game. All he could do was laugh & we were good the rest of the night. A 6'8" is not disadvantaged by the same contact that a 5'6" is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

What really ruins games, at least for me, is officials that constantly have whistles on marginal contact that does not create an advantage. Not only does it ruin the flow of the game, it also does a disservice to player development as kids come to expect to be bailed out by a whistle rather than learn how to play through marginal contact that inevitably occurs as they move up to higher levels of play.

A close second, for me, are officials that pass on contact that does cause an advantage because the contact isn't violent -- or because they feel they can "keep the game moving" and not have "game interrupters."

We had 30 and 31 fouls in my first two boys varsity games. I had 2 "and-ones" in each game. I know officials that would've chastised me on those and to them I say -- why should I pass only cause the ball went in the hole -- the shot attempt was affected?

I'm guessing we're on the same page, though. I watch a fair number of JV games where both teams are in the double bonus early in the second half and about half of those fouls weren't really fouls.

[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?

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Been hanging around Al Battista?

BNR -

Thanks for bring up the only guy in the country that knows Fed and the NCAA rule book verbatim and can quote each and every rule by heart.........

He is the best !!!!!!!