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

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?

If you don't call the game the way the "powers that be" want it called.... you'll referee an endless parade of MS girls............

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

Peace

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

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

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

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.

Do you care to expound? I'm genuinely interested.

Are there rules not in place called "Incidental Contact?" If you read that rule in detail clearly you must determine a few things to not call a foul. The rules are almost to the letter exactly the same in language and intent between NCAA and NF Rules. The difference is the NCAA has used more literature and philosophy to identify when that is. Actually NCAA has done a much better job to explain what is a foul and if you have watched many games over the last couple of years there are more fouls for actions that HS officials try to pass on.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

There's gonna be some cheap And1s :eek:

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

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

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?

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.

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.

Same goes for you too.

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.

Like the guy in the Gardiner video?;)

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

+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

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.

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.

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.

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

An Al Battista Reference !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

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 !!!!!!!

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.

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.

Tower Of Babel ...
 

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.

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