Whistle in or out during free throws?

[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.

[Raymond]

My problem with "on the floor" enthusiasts is when they come in with a late whistle. "On the floor" whistles need to be early and sharp so that it's clear when the foul occurred.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My problem with "on the floor" enthusiasts is when they come in with a late whistle. "On the floor" whistles need to be early and sharp so that it's clear when the foul occurred.

Or better yet, let the play develop a bit and make sure the foul is in the act of shooting.

[zm1283]

Just wave off the shot with the "no shot" signal and verbalize "no shot". That always gets the point across for me. YMMV.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Or better yet, let the play develop a bit and make sure the foul is in the act of shooting.

Or let the play develop a bit and decide maybe there wasn't enough there to call a foul in the first place.

Quick whistles never seem to have the desired results.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Or let the play develop a bit and decide maybe there wasn't enough there to call a foul in the first place.

Quick whistles never seem to have the desired results.

If I'm something "on the floor" (knee to the a$$ of post player; two hands on the dribbler; etc) I'm going get it early. I'm not going to wait to see what happens later then come in with a whistle and say it happened before the shooting motion.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Quick whistles never seem to have the desired results.

Never? I hit my whistle pretty quick when I see a player shove another player. I'm not going to wait for a fight to break out. I hit my whistle pretty quick when I have an intentional foul on a layup. I'm not going to sit there and watch the whole play go through. I'm hitting my whistle as fast as I can. Dunno about you.

There are a lot of situations where a quick whistle is very much appropriate.

[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.

[Adam]

While your play may be a legitimate "before the shot" play, the NBA and NFHS rules are remarkably similar.

[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.