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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

And I actually may have the concepts completely wrong.

I'd say that is the case (and it might also be for those "hot shots" you mentioned).

[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

[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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by 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.

We get told about every season that when coaches complain about fouls, they complain that not enough are called and never that too many are called.

Of course they all think that not enough are called on the OTHER team. Funny how that works.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

+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.

I think we play too many games thinking that the difference of the players changes how we do our job. I call the same game with the same concepts at all levels. Obviously older and bigger players can deal with contact differently, but the concept that I call the game is the same. And many of my HS games are not that far off of the college games I work. Actually at the college level I tend to call more fouls anyway because the contact in that game fits the concepts much more clearly than what people accept at the HS level.

Peace

[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.

[Eastshire]

The way the patient whistle is being taught in my association is to wait to see if the player shoots. The state says we are calling too few shooting fouls, instead making them common fouls.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

Yes, passing on obvious fouls simply because the shot went in is not part of the patient whistle concept. It's just poor officiating.

Now, in a clear blowout I will pass on some "and-1s" that may have otherwise been called. Some people may have a problem with this but I think it's a part of game management and common sense.

Even as a strong supporter of the patient whistle concept, I recognize that we HAVE to protect shooters regardless of whether or not the ball went in. I just have a big beef with whistles on marginal contact. I think that some officials truly don't understand the concept of advantage/disadvantage which IMO is the basis for the patient whistle philosophy.

When I posted in this thread yesterday I was thinking of the JV game I watched before my V game on Tuesday. They were in the double bonus both ways right after the start of the 4th quarter and it was not really a physical game. They just had what IMO were a lot of bad calls on marginal contact.

I'm all for whistles that protect shooters, clean up post play, and get defenders hands off of ball handlers on the perimeter. I'm even sort of chomping at the bit to get a good "bumping a cutter" call here based on what I've seen in some of the scrimmages I did a few weeks ago.

But again, I think understanding what concepts like "patient whistle" and "seeing the whole play" mean and how they should be applied is important to good officiating at all levels of play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'm all for whistles that protect shooters, clean up post play, and get defenders hands off of ball handlers on the perimeter. I'm even sort of chomping at the bit to get a good "bumping a cutter" call here based on what I've seen in some of the scrimmages I did a few weeks ago.

But again, I think understanding what concepts like "patient whistle" and "seeing the whole play" mean and how they should be applied is important to good officiating at all levels of play.

Why do people think these are mutually exclusive? You can protect the shooter and have a patient whistle too. Players flop or act like they got killed on shots when they weren't, that does not mean you have to just blow the whistle when these things take place.

Peace

[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.