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

[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?

[DRJ1960]

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............

[JRutledge]

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

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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

[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