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

[Raymond]

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.

[APG]

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

[Adam]

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.

This is part of the problem. But I doubt it's worse now than twenty years ago. And the shooter doesn't have the right to shoot without being contacted. He has the right to shoot without being put at a disadvantage from illegal contact. There's a difference.

Sometimes, a patient whistle is the only way to see if there's an advantage.

[fiasco]

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 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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Well that is why you can wait to see what the ball did, it does not mean the shot is the only part that must be the factor for a foul to be called. I think people overreact when people say "Wait until the shot is completed" because it is clear that at the college ranks they have "and 1s" often. It is also clear they call more fouls at that level then many do at the HS level. It is not unusual to see a college game where both teams are in the two-shot bonus and we have 8 minutes less and if you called 40 fouls or more in a high school game people would think we called too much.

Peace