RIGHT CALL...But Wrong time!
 

Worked a very competitive Freshman Boys game with an Outstanding Varsity/College official..What a treat for a new guy!

A1 dribbling up court and at the division line b1 hacks him on arm and I blow.

My partner during next break said that I should have not blown because the guy would have had an easy lap up and he beat the defender...so no impact.

He labled this situation: RIGHT CALL But Wrong time.

Thoughts on this concept of Right Call But Wrong time??

One way of putting it. I take it to mean that he agreed there was sufficient contact to call a foul if it had caused the dribbler to lose control or otherwise put him at a disadvantage. But since it didn't, let it go. Lesson learned. Hold the whistle a little longer. Being late on this call is not much of a problem.

See thread below on "Let the play finish."

He gets hit at the division line and your partner can tell that it would be an easy lay-up? Was it a 1-on-none breakaway? If not, if doesn't seem all that clear to me that it would have been a gimme opportunity, especially at the freshman level.

This is probably one of the hardest things to learn or do consistently as an official. And there can often be different opinions as to when that applies. Also the ability of the players change drastically based on the level. Freshman cannot do things varsity players or even college players can do. If they could they would play varsity at that age. ;)

Peace

I have heard the saying, but where I've heard it, team is up 30 points and the losing team commits a traveling violation 70 feet away from the rim with no pressure. tweet.

Right Call...wrong time.

Your case is more about patient whistle, but just from the OP, it's hard to say it wasn't warranted. So ask yourself, did the game benefit from that call? If you are thinking the player would have played through and scored 2 points and you just took that away, then it's probably not a benefit. But if there were other circumstances that it required a quick whistle, then the game did benefit from it.

Just because a player gets hacked on the arm does not necessarily mean there is a foul. What movements was he hindered from? What advantage was gained?

While I agree, if the answer to those questions is "none", then it wasn't the right call at the wrong time, it was the wron call, period. OTOH, if the answer is "some", then you can't assume the player would have had an uncontested layup, and it was the right call at the right time.

I call obvious violations when they take place and I see them clearly. The tape might not lie in those cases either. That is different than not calling foul that might not affect the play IMO.

Peace

I agree. I also agree with Toren's comment regarding the phrase. I've heard it in reference to traveling calls against the losing team in a blow out.

I think maybe this official was trying to use a catch phrase to do two things; encourage the new guy and make a legitimate point. That's a charitable assumption, though.

Let me just say that Toren's comments represent the expected calls here as well.

Sort of like what RichMSN said previously about the losing team in his blow out sitting in the lane and lighting a fire.

Here's an example.

A1 is driving to the basket and has B1 beat but B1 is riding him with a handcheck.

Now, there are those that say a handcheck is a handcheck is a handcheck. But for me, A1 is not being placed at a disadvantage.

Personally, I hold the whistle until A1 has started his habitual motion that begins the shot. If there's still a hand check, NOW I blow the foul. A1 is either going to get the basket and a FT or 2 FTs.

There it is. I also believe in seeing the whole play through, judging advantage/disadvantage.

I'm not a big fan of "right call, wrong time." I'm more to the liking of, "that's the wrong call, BECAUSE of the wrong time." Of course, much of it is subjective.

Another scenario that I am still working my way thru is when there is contact in the lane under the basket where B1 is holding is spot and is vertical and A1 shoots and contact occurs with B1. (Not driving to hoop just underneat

I have called a foul in many cases on B1 but have been told since A1 initiated contact and B1 was holding his spot..no call.

We penalize the defense way too often for things they do not do wrong under the rules. This is why you referee the defense and many of these plays will become obvious more often than not.

Peace

Why would you call a foul on B1? Ask yourself what he did wrong, and remember what the rules allow B1 to do. This should be a no-call, as B1 is perfectly legal and A1 jumping into him doesn't change that.

Speaking of which, did that Gardiner game get much airplay in your preseason meetings?

I'm not necessarily big on who initiates the contact. If the defender has his arms extended outside his vertical plane, then A1 is legally entitled to that space. If he initiates contact, so what? It's still a foul on B1.

I get kids behind the shooter all the time that "claim" they have verticality, yet the contact the shooter on the arms on the shot. I've yet to figure out how that's possible from behind A1. Foul.

Nope, I don't believe it was ever discussed. We watched a fair amount of video in our big Saturday pre-season meeting, but it's a lot easier to watch and critique officials when they're out of state.

Just a quick point here, it's not some officials who say "a handcheck is a handcheck is a handcheck", its the FED Rules Committee.

I agree with what so many of you say here, referee the defense! But in my opinion I see too many handchecks not called fouls, especially ones where the defender is using the hand or forearm on the hip to ride the driver away from his path to the hole, or slow his progress, Using the handcheck to control the direction of the dribbler is a foul and needs to be called more often.

Actually, where I live, it is "some officials." And they make the call whether there's advantage/disadvantage or not. :(