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?

This is why there is a distinction between fouls that you have to call to prevent the game from going down the tubes, and fouls based on advantage/disadvantage. Sometimes, only experience tells you what those fouls are.

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.

Exactly. And any coach that doesnt understand that hasnt been doing this very long and will probably be yelling if you did blow your whistle, "hey you just killed our fast break."



I've been told the same thing. I like JAR's responses on incidental vs illegal.

When applied correctly, I don't think advantage/disadvantage or "seeing the whole play" is a double edged sword at all.

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.

There is almost always going to be contact on rebounds, so I would probably have passed on the contact unless I felt they were giving a more difficult shot by the contact. We can talk philosophy on this all day, but unless I see the contact I really am not sure if you did the right thing. All I will say is this is a time to have a slow whistle, but I am not sure I would wait on an obvious foul just because to wait to see if the shot was made. If I have a rebounding foul, I probably would have called a foul way before the shot. Then again not seeing the play it is hard to say what was the right thing to do.

Peace

And I'm, What You Call, Very Experienced ...
 

Agree. Well put.

+1

Possible thread hijack:

Play: A1 attempts a two-handed, over-the-head crosscourt pass. As she releases the ball, B1 contacts her on the forearm with an open palm ("smack"). The pass is still released. If we paused the action right here, the official judges the contact to be incidental, especially given the level of play and the calls that night. Resume action. The pass floats, and B2 intercepts the pass.

Question: Is it too late to go back and get a foul on B1?

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.

When there is a case where the question can be asked "is it too late...", the official has to (a) have a quick whistle if there is one, and (b) quickly judge the intent of the action prior to the foul.

This is where having played the game helps.

Camps taught me to know where the ball is going (on a pass, who the intended receiver is, etc) and if illegal contact hinders that goal, then yes, grab the foul.

When there is a smack as in your play bob, I think it's easier to call a foul, even if it's late. So yes, grab that foul. It wasn't incidental and shouldn't have been thought of that way in the first place.

I think there are some fouls that in our heads, are delayed fouls. They're not immediately known to be incidental, or immediately known to have a whistle. We do wait a short amount of time to gather more information. I once saw one of the top college officials in my (ahem) state whistle a play down a good 1.5 seconds after the foul. It was 100% the right call, but just late. No a single person said anything to him.

If you already "judged" the contact to be incidental...then you stay with your non-call.

If you are gathering information...and have not already "judged" incidental...you could probably "go back" and get the foul...one of those have to be there.

Dave Libby told us at one of his camps..."have the courage to NOT CALL the foul, when the whole gym heard the slap". This was in relation to a lay-up...and probably just a slap on the hand.

I quickly look at the path of the ball. More times than not I'm coming in with a whistle that's a little late.

I really like that. Sometimes it takes more courage not to call anything if you're sure there was nothing there.

Its a thing of beauty when the entire crew follows this play calling guideline for rebounds.

I think those plays should be handled as SDF plays. When he got smacked on the pass, the play wasnt over yet.
Turnover, the play is over, slap caused a disadvantage... late whistle.
Hits the mark, the play is now over, slap didnt cause a disadvantage... the clock runs.

Never too late to get it right!

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.

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.

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 :D

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.

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 think I know where Tio goes to school!

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.

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.

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.

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,

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

Credit to Snaqwells post 13:

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 the player in question secures the rebound, and contact by the opponent didn't fold him in half, (clean up rough play) how was he hindered?

That's the art of officiating, knowing how to properly incorporate this philosophy.

The rule talks about being hindered from performing normal defensive or offensive movements. We normally call that advantage/disadvantage, but often times we consider displacement to be sufficient. On rebounding situations, the idea is that in most cases, if the right player gets the rebound, it's incidental. OTOH, if the push moves the opponent too far off his spot....

How far is too far? That is a matter of judgment, and sometimes we have to adjust based on game circumstances.