let the play finish?
 

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?

Without seeing it, I'm probably letting this one go even if A2 misses the shot.

The one thing you can't do, is call the foul which occurred on the rebound after and because he missed the shot.

I've got a pre-rebound foul only if it is severe contact (rare) or if the contact affects the gathering of the rebound.

Seeing how A2 rebounded the ball anyways, I then look at the quality of the shot attempt. If it was a (very) piss poor attempt, and I judge his position to have been affected by the push, I whistle it dead, waive off the attempt, and call the pre-rebound foul. If the attempt was not affected, then play on, and it's either a hit or miss with no foul in the mix.

Ok, but
 

I like the responses on this thread, but I have one question for you:

Isn't making a call like this an open invitation to more pushing and shoving and rough play?

Because if the rebounder misses the shot, and then you play on, you have just told the player who pushed off that you can get away with doing it. Also, now the person who misses the shot now believes it was the uncalled foul that caused her miss, and she is going to play more physical at her end.

This kind of thinking can lead to more fouls in the long run, and maybe even exploding tempers and physical harm in rare cases. And we have not even talked about the coaches in this yet.

The Fed rules committee every years speaks about rough play and how they want the game called. As I read the committee, this kind of foul needs to be called in their opinion. Are they right?

Comments please.

When the Tower Philosophy Gets a Bit Tricky
 

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?

First thought: what's more likely to encourage the behavior?
Passing on a call where the pushed player got the rebound, or calling a foul and taking away an easy basket?

Tick...Tick...Tick
 

Waiting for a second thought.

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.

Okay, but...
 

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'...

Ditto!
 

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

4-27-3 should be taken into account:

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental."

If A2 got the rebound, the question could be asked; what movements were prevented by the push? Typically, I like to hold my whistle when the "right" player gets the rebound, but if the displacement is significant or the play is getting rough, I might grab one where the offended player got the rebound or the basket went in.

If the players somehow take that as permission to start pushing, start getting them if you feel you need to reign it in.

The last thing I want to do, though, is to reward a player for pushing by taking an easy bucket away from his opponent. This is like calling the defender for a slap on the arm as the dribbler blows by him for a wide open chip shot.

Pushing and shoving need no invitation.



What exactly did he get away with? Consider the definition of a personal foul.

Illegal contact which hinders a player from performing normal offensive or defensive maneuvers.

A player trying to rebound was pushed. He got the rebound anyway. Was he actually hindered? No is the rule, but there are exceptions. Without seeing the OP,which might show otherwise, my thought is no call.

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?