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

[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 !!!!!!!

[twocentsworth]

Having a "patient whistle" and "seeing the play start, develop, & finish" are concepts that should be used at all levels......HOWEVER, it seems that too many people are confused about HOW to apply these principles.

IT IS NOT to wait and see if the contact caused an advantage/disadvantage situation (that was called the Tower Philosophy of officiating - which was used by officials previously). The classic example is, B1 contacts/bumps A1 during a shot attempt and the calling official waits to see if the shot is missed BEFORE deciding to blow the whistle. In essence, it's only called a foul IF the shot is missed. Or, the illegal screen is only called IF the ball handler gets a clear scoring opportunity because of the illegal contact.

The Tower Philosophy gave rise to the "a foul is a foul" concept. Call the foul when it occurs regardless of whether the shot is made or not. IMHO, officials moved too quickly in calling fouls (with the "foul is a foul" concept in mind) BEFORE they saw the whole play or saw the impact of the contact.

The concept of "start, develop, finish" (which has NBA roots) allows an official to see the contact that occurs in a play and categorize it into 1 of 3 areas: incidental contact; marginal contact; contact that warrants a foul. Obviously, incidental contact is nothing....contact that warrants a foul gets a whistle. It's the marginal contact area where tougher decisions are made (and the real crux of what we're talking about).

At the NCAA-M level, officials are to assess if contact hinders the rythm, speed, balance, & quickness of a player (shooter, dribbler, cutter, defender, etc) - then that contact is deemed to be a foul.

You can only accurately assess the play when you see the WHOLE play. That doesn't mean you wait until a shot is missed - if the contact interrupts the shooters RSBQ (rythm, speed, etc....), then you have a foul whether the shot goes in or not.

In conclusion, it's not the philosophy of "start, develop, finish" or "patient whistle" that is ruining the game. The incorrect practical application of these concepts (i.e. think they're supposed to wait and see if the shot is missed before they call a foul) by some officials that is leading to a more physical game. The solution is to see the whole play, categorize the contact, and officiate accordingly.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

IT IS NOT to wait and see if the contact caused an advantage/disadvantage situation (that was called the Tower Philosophy of officiating - which was used by officials previously).

You know, I've been doing this for 25 years now and I really believe this is an incorrect description of the Tower Philosophy. Whether the shot goes in or not has never been part of it, at least the way it's been taught to me and the way I've taught others.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I really believe this is an incorrect description of the Tower Philosophy. Whether the shot goes in or not has never been part of it, at least the way it's been taught to me and the way I've taught others.

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasis cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You know, I've been doing this for 25 years now and I really believe this is an incorrect description of the Tower Philosophy. Whether the shot goes in or not has never been part of it, at least the way it's been taught to me and the way I've taught others.

I agree. Now, some have "over applied" the Tower philosophy -- perhaps even those "hot shots" referred to at the beginning of the thread.