Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 821087)

What the gent in the OP is suggesting is that we ignore fouls on made baskets.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 821094)

Right, which is something we do in soccer.

In an attacker is fouled while he blasts a shot into the upper 90, we ignore the foul (unless it's cardworthy). While there's no need to yell "play on" here, the advantage concept is still applied.

Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 821098)

We're not ignoring it; we're playing advantage even if we don't signal it in this particular case. It's still a completely different thing than what's being suggested and done for a completely different reason.

Originally Posted by Blindolbat (Post 820897)

I had an official that I respect very much, with many years of playoff experience, tell me after observing me that any foul called on a made basket is an unnecessary call. Went so far as to say "and 1" shouldn't ever be called unless the contact is very egregious. There were five other experienced officials in the locker room while he was talking to me and afterwards all were a little confused by these comments.
I'm all for letting skilled players play through some contact as long as there's no advantage, but don't the shooters deserve a little protection, especially on plays that aren't very saavy from the defenders. And does everyone really wait to see the result of a shot before they're calling fouls?
Thanks for your thoughts.

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 821146)

I think it's exactly the same thing.

In the soccer case, the reason the foul "appears" ignored, is because we're playing advantage, as you said. The OP is attempting the same principle in basketball, to play the advantage by ignoring a foul when the score counted.

Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 821158)

So, no, the concept of advantage from soccer, namely, don't allow the offended team to be hurt more by enforcing the penalty for a foul, is not the motivation to not calling "and ones" because an "and one" doesn't hurt the offended team.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 821170)

WRT made shots, you're right, but the concept comes into play with contact (note I didn't say foul) on the drive before the shot. If A1 is driving past B1 and B1 bumps him off his path a little (but not enough to negatively affect the drive), calling the foul does hurt A. If it slows A1 down enough for B2 to catch up to the shot, that's when a patient but confident whistle is helpful.

Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 821158)

So, no, the concept of advantage from soccer, namely, don't allow the offended team to be hurt more by enforcing the penalty for a foul, is not the motivation to not calling "and ones" because an "and one" doesn't hurt the offended team.

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan (Post 820953)

We as an association got the same speech about a year ago.