Whistle in or out during free throws?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

No. But to me it is rather frustrating that as I read the question someone was so unsure of what to do with a whistle during a game he needed to get advice about it. It seemed to me he felt like if he had it out he was wrong, and should have kept it in, or visa versa.

Maybe I'm misreading things, but it seems to me that these days in basketball and in other sports officials are being told there is only one right way to do things, only one right place to stand, only one right way to signal. And I immediately revolt at such thinking these days.

It just goes along with "best practices" or "continuous improvement plans" and all sorts of other things in our society today that demand we do everything exactly the same, instead of doing things right in that moment based on the situation at hand.

Another pet peeve is the movement to go away from saying words like 'baseline' and 'on the floor' during and after calling fouls. You mean that simple words to communicate what happened on a foul or where to put the ball in play are now wrong? I've only heard and used the word 'baseline' as a player and official for 40 years. Now it's verboten?

It's absurd.

This may make sense in baseball (I have no idea as I don't work baseball) but in basketball consistency between a crew is pretty important. I don't want to be guessing what my partner means by some obscure signal that isn't in the book. "On the floor" is absurd, in my opinion. If we were all allowed to free-form it, we would all look silly out there and we should be the ones on the court who just flow together like a well oiled machine. I don't want to guess what my partner means. I want us all to use the same mechanics. I don't think it's absurd to feel that way.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

This may make sense in baseball (I have no idea as I don't work baseball) but in basketball consistency between a crew is pretty important. I don't want to be guessing what my partner means by some obscure signal that isn't in the book. "On the floor" is absurd, in my opinion. If we were all allowed to free-form it, we would all look silly out there and we should be the ones on the court who just flow together like a well oiled machine. I don't want to guess what my partner means. I want us all to use the same mechanics. I don't think it's absurd to feel that way.

True! Afterall, since when did a shooter have to "leave the floor" to be in their habitual shooting motion?

[Adam]

My partners this year have had a habit of using the insipid foul tip signal on blocked shots. I couldn't bear to watch what one used when calling a "reach." There are some things we can deviate on (like whether to put your whistle in on the first of two FTs, what brand of shoes to wear, or how you throw the opening tip), but when you start deviating from the norm just because compliance goes against your nature, then we look like tools out there.

[Adam]

And I don't give a crap about "baseline" or "call timeout", but "on the floor" perpetuates a myth just like calling "over the back" or "reach" or signaling a travel when a thrower leaves his three foot spot.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And I don't give a crap about "baseline" or "call timeout", but "on the floor" perpetuates a myth just like calling "over the back" or "reach" or signaling a travel when a thrower leaves his three foot spot.

Yep, exactly. "Baseline" means exactly the same thing as "endline".

I hate when partners say "On the floor" and look like they're counting a made basket. I also have partners say "over the back" and "reach" when they're verbalizing fouls.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And I don't give a crap about "baseline" or "call timeout", but "on the floor" perpetuates a myth just like calling "over the back" or "reach" or signaling a travel when a thrower leaves his three foot spot.

What myth?

A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.

I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.

I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?

The second I go out and sell the call as 'on the floor' I have now told the coaches, teams and crowd that there was no shot, the ball was dead two steps before A put the ball up, and the basket doesn't count. To say there is something wrong with that I just can't understand. Using those words are just part of the way to sell the call, along with proper signals to make sure it's clear.

Yes, the words have to be used carefully, and I understand they can be misused by officials who should call the 2 shot foul instead of the common foul on the floor. But again, I state my point, this is another case where we are being forced into a one size fits all way to officiate, and it is not a good thing.

How many times have seen over the years where rule, interp, or mechanic Z is taught as being the best way to do things, then six months later the opposite is now considered to be the best way to do things?

All that matters as an official is to get the call right, referee the players, and give both sides an equal chance to win the game. How you do that is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

Now I'll just go back to lurking.

[fiasco]

There are certain phrases that are understood by the "basketball community" (coaches, fans, players) and that officials tend to get all bent out of shape about. "Over the back" is one of them.

I don't have a problem with the term. I don't use it when I officiate, but it's not like I'm going to go out there and act like a coach who's talking to me about it is an idiot, either. "No such thing as over the back, coach." That's just plain silly.

We have to live in reality. And in reality, "on the floor," "over the back" and "reach" are just phrases that are accepted in the basketball community. Doesn't mean we have to use them when we officiate, but acting like they are perpetuating some myth and harming the game is rather absurd.

Our job (with coaches, at least, when asked) is to communicate why the action on the floor did or did not constitute a foul. No more, no less. 99 percent of fans and coaches are going to understand when you say "on the floor" that the calling official means it's not a shooting foul. If you have that big of a problem with it, pregame it with your partner. "Hey Fred, when I say "on the floor," I mean it's not a shooting foul."

Getting all bent out of shape about the words used is just a waste of time.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

There are certain phrases that are understood by the "basketball community" (coaches, fans, players) and that officials tend to get all bent out of shape about. "Over the back" is one of them.

I don't have a problem with the term. I don't use it when I officiate, but it's not like I'm going to go out there and act like a coach who's talking to me about it is an idiot, either. "No such thing as over the back, coach." That's just plain silly.

We have to live in reality. And in reality, "on the floor," "over the back" and "reach" are just phrases that are accepted in the basketball community. Doesn't mean we have to use them when we officiate, but acting like they are perpetuating some myth and harming the game is rather absurd.

Our job (with coaches, at least, when asked) is to communicate why the action on the floor did or did not constitute a foul. No more, no less. 99 percent of fans and coaches are going to understand when you say "on the floor" that the calling official means it's not a shooting foul. If you have that big of a problem with it, pregame it with your partner. "Hey Fred, when I say "on the floor," I mean it's not a shooting foul."

edit to add: I'm not going to tell a coach "no such thing as over the back" but I will say "no displacement on that, coach". And, yes, too many coaches (seem to) think that a taller player should be penalized for reaching over a shorter player to get a rebound.

Getting all bent out of shape about the words used is just a waste of time.

I agree that a foul committed before the try is (usually) also "on the floor."

The problem is that many then come to believe that all fouls "on the floor" result in no FTs (assuming it's before the bonus), and that's not true.

If A then B does not imply if B then A.

It's the same with "reach" and "over the back" -- a player may have fouled by reaching, but it doesn't mean that all reaching is a foul.

edit to add: I'm not going to tell a coach "no such thing as over the back" but I will say "no displacement on that, coach". And, yes, too many coaches (seem to) think that a taller player should be penalized for reaching over a shorter player to get a rebound.

[tref]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

What myth?

A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.

I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.

I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?

The second I go out and sell the call as 'on the floor' I have now told the coaches, teams and crowd that there was no shot, the ball was dead two steps before A put the ball up, and the basket doesn't count. .

Oh my!! HS...
Perhaps you should slow down your whistle on SDF drives to the basket OR revisit continuous motion??
Why are so many of us hung up on "selling it on the floor" vs. looking for a reason to put them on the line?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

...Why are so many of us hung up on "selling it on the floor" vs. looking for a reason to put them on the line?

My thoughts exactly. Let's not reward the defense for fouling. If I'm too err, it will be towards putting the player on the line.

Never understood the big deal a lot of officials make to put a foul "on the floor", even when I was a rookie.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by tref

Oh my!! HS...
Perhaps you should slow down your whistle on SDF drives to the basket OR revisit continuous motion??
Why are so many of us hung up on "selling it on the floor" vs. looking for a reason to put them on the line?

Tref,

Don't hand me that garbage. The play I put out there was clear, A had started his drive, and was pushed by B. A had not stated a shooting motion and he took two steps before he shot the ball after my whistle went off. If it's LeBron, he gets the hoop and harm. Let me know when you work games on that level.

If you want to call HS BK with NBA continuation rules be my guest. But don't come and say I'm not making the right call because I'm looking for reasons not to put a shooter on the line. Unlike you, I happen to understand the rules about SDF drives to the hole, and just as obviously you haven't read comments on the rules in the last several books about hand-checking and illegal contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

What myth?

A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.

I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.

I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?

Most would say that "before the shot" (or "during the drive") communicates the status better than "on the floor."

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

What myth?

A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.

I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.

I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?

The second I go out and sell the call as 'on the floor' I have now told the coaches, teams and crowd that there was no shot, the ball was dead two steps before A put the ball up, and the basket doesn't count. To say there is something wrong with that I just can't understand. Using those words are just part of the way to sell the call, along with proper signals to make sure it's clear.

Yes, the words have to be used carefully, and I understand they can be misused by officials who should call the 2 shot foul instead of the common foul on the floor. But again, I state my point, this is another case where we are being forced into a one size fits all way to officiate, and it is not a good thing.

How many times have seen over the years where rule, interp, or mechanic Z is taught as being the best way to do things, then six months later the opposite is now considered to be the best way to do things?

All that matters as an official is to get the call right, referee the players, and give both sides an equal chance to win the game. How you do that is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

Now I'll just go back to lurking.

Perhaps, but you can be shooting on the floor. That is the problem with that phrase. When the official after you puts a player on the line who was fouled "on the floor", you've just opened the door for unnecessary grief.

It simply conveys the wrong information.

Sure, there are things that change and things that really don't matter, but this is not one of them. endline/baseline....OK. Hit/Hands/Illegal use of Hands....OK. On the floor vs no-shot....different because they're not mutually exclusive.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

What myth?

A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.

I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.

I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?

It's wrong to leave the impression that the shooter's position on the floor has anything to do with whether he was shooting. He could be in the air and passing, or he could have begun his motion while on the floor. In fact, I don't recall many airborne shooters who didn't begin their shooting motion while still on the floor. Some even take another step after beginning that motion.

Having had a conversation with a coach after a partner put a shooter on the line for a foul committed on the floor, I assure you the verbage is a problem.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My partners this year have had a habit of using the insipid foul tip signal on blocked shots.

A whole lot of really good college officials use this "insipid" mechanic. You seem a tad cranky this morning.