let the play finish?

[Freddy]

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. . .

Seems there are two distinct elements here:
#1 Illegal contact on a rebound, then...
#2 A shot that was begun after the ball became dead due to a whistle for #1.

If I understand this correctly, I agree with your call.
Your partner's question in the locker room had the convenient benefit of hindsight, the beneficial aspect of knowing whether or not the subsequent goal was successful.
Back to real time: If, during the contest, you delayed to see if the basket was good and it wasn't, how would you backtrack and award a common foul based on the fact that the shot wasn't successful? You couldn't award a two shot foul, since it occurred before the shot attempt. You're stuck.

Could there be a case for "advantage/disadvantage" here? Perhaps that's what your partner was illuding to. But again, passing on #1 foul would be easy if the goal was successful. The conundrum is what you'd do if it wasn't. Which it wasn't. Therefore you avoided a tough situation by calling what you saw when you saw it.

Am I understanding your scenerio correctly?

[Chris Whitten]

Freddy, you are understanding it correctly. You summed up my opinion exactly. JugglingReferee, your opinion is very interesting to me...probably more along the lines of what the senior official was thinking. But it makes more sense to me the way you explained it. I'll have to grow into this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten

Freddy, you are understanding it correctly. You summed up my opinion exactly. JugglingReferee, your opinion is very interesting to me...probably more along the lines of what the senior official was thinking. But it makes more sense to me the way you explained it. I'll have to grow into this.

I don't like the idea of reaching back to get a foul because the offense wasn't able to make a shot. I think the Juggler said it well.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't like the idea of reaching back to get a foul because the offense wasn't able to make a shot. I think the Juggler said it well.

Precisely my point.
I agree with your assessment of Juggler's assessment.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten

Freddy, you are understanding it correctly. You summed up my opinion exactly. JugglingReferee, your opinion is very interesting to me...probably more along the lines of what the senior official was thinking. But it makes more sense to me the way you explained it. I'll have to grow into this.

Real Scenerio Related to Me in a Pregame Two Weeks Ago:
Fast break with only one defender to beat. Defender fouls dribbler just after she crosses division line. Partner relating this account said he passed on it, judging that dribbler would be put at disadvantage on subsequent layup which looked like it was gonna be an easy one-on-none attempt by the time she got to the lane. She tanks one off the bottom of the rim. Coach goes ballistic over why the foul wasn't called. Probably wouldn't have said a thing had the layup been successful.
Couldn't go back and call the foul that preceeded the failed attempt. He was stuck.

Only difference between this and the scenerio first expressed was the amount of time in between foul and successful goal. But the condundrum remains the same.

This advantage/disadvantage concept for deciding when to call and not call a foul can be a two-edged sword at times.

Just sayin'...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Real Scenerio Related to Me in a Pregame Two Weeks Ago:
Fast break with only one defender to beat. Defender fouls dribbler just after she crosses division line. Partner relating this account said he passed on it, judging that dribbler would be put at disadvantage on subsequent layup which looked like it was gonna be an easy one-on-none attempt by the time she got to the lane. She tanks one off the bottom of the rim. Coach goes ballistic over why the foul wasn't called. Probably wouldn't have said a thing had the layup been successful.
Couldn't go back and call the foul that preceeded the failed attempt. He was stuck.

Only difference between this and the scenerio first expressed was the amount of time in between foul and successful goal. But the condundrum remains the same.

This advantage/disadvantage concept for deciding when to call and not call a foul can be a two-edged sword at times.

Just sayin'...

I would have simply told the coach I didn't consider the contact a foul because she played through it and had a wide open shot. I don't have any second thoughts on these, either. If she misses a wide open layup, why should I feel guilty about letting her take it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Fast break with only one defender to beat. Defender fouls dribbler just after she crosses division line. Partner relating this account said he passed on it, judging that dribbler would be put at disadvantage on subsequent layup which looked like it was gonna be an easy one-on-none attempt by the time she got to the lane. She tanks one off the bottom of the rim. Coach goes ballistic over why the foul wasn't called. Probably wouldn't have said a thing had the layup been successful.
Couldn't go back and call the foul that preceeded the failed attempt. He was stuck.

Coaches use the terms fouled/touched/barely touched interchangeable, depending on what they want at the time. The defender contacted the dribbler at the division line, followed by the dribbler finishing the layup one on none.
Doesn't sound like a foul to me.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Real Scenerio Related to Me in a Pregame Two Weeks Ago:
Fast break with only one defender to beat. Defender fouls dribbler just after she crosses division line. Partner relating this account said he passed on it, judging that dribbler would be put at disadvantage on subsequent layup which looked like it was gonna be an easy one-on-none attempt by the time she got to the lane. She tanks one off the bottom of the rim. Coach goes ballistic over why the foul wasn't called. Probably wouldn't have said a thing had the layup been successful.
Couldn't go back and call the foul that preceeded the failed attempt. He was stuck.

Only difference between this and the scenerio first expressed was the amount of time in between foul and successful goal. But the condundrum remains the same.

This advantage/disadvantage concept for deciding when to call and not call a foul can be a two-edged sword at times.

Just sayin'...

That time difference, and location on the court for that matter, do play a part in determining if fouls should be called.

In the OP, there is little chance to overcome the effects of the contact, so the contact is more scrutinized.

In your case, the foul happened far from the basket, giving the new offensive player much time and space to do her thing. In addition, players have different momentum crossing the DL than they do jumping for a rebound.

I guess what I'm saying is that RSBQ differs in the two plays.