let the play finish?

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think in Bob's play, you have to decide whether the slap caused the turnover, or whether A1 happened to throw a bad pass after an incidental slap.

Absolutely, and the best time to make that decision is once the play has concluded NOT while the play is still developing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

Absolutely, and the best time to make that decision is once the play has concluded NOT while the play is still developing.

Partly. If you decide there was no affect on the pass, then there's no need to wait to decide. If there was some affect, then it would be better to hold a second and see if the pass might be picked off.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tref

Absolutely, and the best time to make that decision is once the play has concluded NOT while the play is still developing.

So when do you decide that the play has "concluded"? What criteria do you use to determine that?

In Bob's scenario - if the arm is slapped and the "pass" ends up going straight up in the air, I'm calling the foul right now as the slap caused that errant pass. I don't need to wait to see if someone steals the pass.

[tref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So when do you decide that the play has "concluded"? What criteria do you use to determine that?

In Bob's scenario - if the arm is slapped and the "pass" ends up going straight up in the air, I'm calling the foul right now as the slap caused that errant pass. I don't need to wait to see if someone steals the pass.

As you know, I'm sure, sometimes there are many plays within a single possession. The spin & ruling you put on Bobs sitch leads me to believe that you know exactly when a play has concluded. Nice call

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Partly. If you decide there was no affect on the pass, then there's no need to wait to decide. If there was some affect, then it would be better to hold a second and see if the pass might be picked off.

I think it's the other way 'round -- if you see an effect, call the foul. If you don't see an effect, wait to see if you were right.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten

A1 shoots and misses a 12 footer from the wing. A2 has good, solid inside rebounding position and is pushed from behind by B2 on the rebound. A2 then goes up and makes the bucket AFTER the whistle for the push. Basket is waved off and A2 shoots as A is in the bonus. I am at C and its my whistle for the push.

At halftime, a senior official asks if I liked the call. He explains that he'd like to see us hold the whistle and see if she makes or misses the shot. Only hit the whistle if she misses.

I suppose by the rule book I have standing for the whistle. But do you guys like the advice from the senior official on this one? Would you add anything?

This is a great question and there are multiple teaching points.

The key here is we should almost always try to have a patient whistle at the "finish" of the play vs. whistling a foul at the start or develop stages. This will allow us to see the whole play and allow players to try and make an athletic move. Sometimes there is borderline contact that does not affect a shooter's ability to score a basket.

Second, in regard to rebounding action, there are 2 times we call fouls: 1. Possession/Consequence which means the wrong team gets the ball as result of illegal contact. (In your scenario there was no possession/consequence). 2. Is for cleanup... we see an action that we do not want to see again or allow to escalate. Did you play fit this description?

Our role as officials is to make the game fair. We also have a responsibility to promote a good flow and not put unnecessary whistles in the game. If you have to call a marginal "and one" keep in mind you have to call the same play a foul the entire game. Was your call good for the game?

I would ask the Sr. official for more details on what you could have done differently. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to learn and improve.

[tref]

I think I know where Tio goes to school!

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Tio

This is a great question and there are multiple teaching points.

The key here is we should almost always try to have a patient whistle at the "finish" of the play vs. whistling a foul at the start or develop stages. This will allow us to see the whole play and allow players to try and make an athletic move. Sometimes there is borderline contact that does not affect a shooter's ability to score a basket.

Second, in regard to rebounding action, there are 2 times we call fouls: 1. Possession/Consequence which means the wrong team gets the ball as result of illegal contact. (In your scenario there was no possession/consequence). 2. Is for cleanup... we see an action that we do not want to see again or allow to escalate. Did you play fit this description?

Our role as officials is to make the game fair. We also have a responsibility to promote a good flow and not put unnecessary whistles in the game. If you have to call a marginal "and one" keep in mind you have to call the same play a foul the entire game. Was your call good for the game?

I would ask the Sr. official for more details on what you could have done differently. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to learn and improve.

I wonder, though if this whole "let the play develop" philosophy may be starting going by the wayside.

John Adams was interviewed in Slam magazine recently and said basically he'd like to see the NCAA move away from officiating being an art and a philosophy and become more of a science.

What Adams has been trying to weed out of the college game, among other things, is the hand check by the defender with the referee waiting to see if it disrupts the play. Adams insists a foul is a foul, whether the dribbler loses control or not. It used to be calls were made along the lines of “advantage/disadvantage.” Interpretation: There had to be some mayhem for a foul to be called.

Link

[Tio]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I wonder, though if this whole "let the play develop" philosophy may be starting going by the wayside.

John Adams was interviewed in Slam magazine recently and said basically he'd like to see the NCAA move away from officiating being an art and a philosophy and become more of a science.



Link

I say this... fouls are fouls. But putting the whistle on the finish of a play helps us save some whistles on 50/50 plays. This is not what John Adams is referring to with this quote. He is referring to plays being called differently in different college conferences. Or officials using "philosophies" not backed up by the rule book or official's manual. Anyone who has watched a Big East game 5-10 years ago know that they took the "no blood no foul" rule to an extreme. John Adams wants plays called consistently in any of his gyms.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Tio

This is not what John Adams is referring to with this quote. He is referring to plays being called differently in different college conferences.

I'm not following you. Where does it say that's what John Adams is referring to with his quote?

[tref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm not following you. Where does it say that's what John Adams is referring to with his quote?

Quote:
What Adams has been trying to weed out of the college game, among other things, is the hand check by the defender with the referee waiting to see if it disrupts the play. Adams insists a foul is a foul, whether the dribbler loses control or not. It used to be calls were made along the lines of “advantage/disadvantage.” Interpretation: There had to be some mayhem for a foul to be called.

Having a patient whistle on SDF plays is not what he was referring to, not having an immediate whistle for RSBQ plays is. There's a difference.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tref

Quote:
What Adams has been trying to weed out of the college game, among other things, is the hand check by the defender with the referee waiting to see if it disrupts the play. Adams insists a foul is a foul, whether the dribbler loses control or not. It used to be calls were made along the lines of “advantage/disadvantage.” Interpretation: There had to be some mayhem for a foul to be called.

Having a patient whistle on SDF plays is not what he was referring to, not having an immediate whistle for RSBQ plays is. There's a difference.

I'm a huge fan of RSBQ thinking. I know I've called more fouls up top (and more consistently, too) in the past few years.

I've changed quite a bit -- I'd look for reasons to not call fouls instead of taking the game as it happens. If I have a game with 10 fouls, great. If I happen to have one with 40, well, it's less great, but it is what it is.

[tref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm a huge fan of RSBQ thinking. I know I've called more fouls up top (and more consistently, too) in the past few years.

I've changed quite a bit -- I'd look for reasons to not call fouls instead of taking the game as it happens. If I have a game with 10 fouls, great. If I happen to have one with 40, well, it's less great, but it is what it is.

Yezzir, RSBQ guidelines on the perimeter & SDF guidelines below the FT line extended or on passer contact makes it easier to make quality decisions.

Getting all 3 to buy into that becomes the bigger challenge.

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

On these type of plays (rebounding plays) I've been told to only call a foul if:

1. There's possession consequence
2. To clean up rough play.

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

In 1, I would say that possession is a factor in judging advantage/disadvantage, but not necessarily determinitive.

In 2, I understand this might be good game management, but what rule says that past actions in the game, or potential future actions in the game, are factors in whether contact on a given play is incidental or illegal?

Thanks all,

[tref]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I've seen multiple posts with this same theme/response. Can someone quote me a rule that supports this philosophy?

Like Ragu, its in there! 4-27-3