"And 1" a bad call?

[doubleringer]

I think it might be possible the observer was trying to say have a patient whistle and see the whole play? I don't take it as far as not calling a foul if the basket goes, but I do think at times we officials get a little whistle happy and call the and one more than it needs to be called.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

I think it might be possible the observer was trying to say have a patient whistle and see the whole play? I don't take it as far as not calling a foul if the basket goes, but I do think at times we officials get a little whistle happy and call the and one more than it needs to be called.

But the fact that the ball went in the hole isn't why we hold the whistle -- it's that the contact doesn't rise to the level of a foul. This should be true whether the shot is made or missed.

[gdudik]

Originally Posted by richmsn

but the fact that the ball went in the hole isn't why we hold the whistle -- it's that the contact doesn't rise to the level of a foul. This should be true whether the shot is made or missed.

+1

[Adam]

Whether the shot goes in doesn't matter, IMO. The question is whether the contact makes the shot discernibly more difficult.

[Camron Rust]

There were a lot of guys around here who used to suggest the same thing and some that still do. It is often pushed by a lot, but not all, of the D3 and NAIA guys. But it is a fading philosophy.

I never really liked it and tried to to some degree and it just doesn't work out well in general. There is contact that makes the shot more difficult. The shooter deserves something more for having to make the shot under those circumstances. When not called, players get frustrated and coaches get frustrated....not worth the headaches to get done 5 minutes quicker.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

I think it might be possible the observer was trying to say have a patient whistle and see the whole play

I see this argument as, "how can the contact be truly advantageous when the shooter scored?"

It's somewhat of a soccer mentality, but there are a number reasons it doesn't work in basketball. The big one, as I see it, is continuation.

In other sports, the whistle kills the play, which is why those whistles are more patient. For example, you want to make sure a soccer attacker can "play through" any advantageous contact. You don't blast the whistle until the scoring opportunity is negated.

In basketball, by rule, if you're fouled after you start your attempt, the whistle allows you to finish it. This rule acknowledges that advantageous contact happens during tries for goal, and penalizes accordingly, while allowing the shooter his right complete his attempt.

I still believe in a patient whistle in basketball, especially on non-shooting fouls. Still, as long as continuation exists in basketball (which it should), the need to be patient won't be as strong as the other sports.

[doubleringer]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I see this argument as, "how can the contact be truly advantageous when the shooter scored?"

It's somewhat of a soccer mentality, but there are a number reasons it doesn't work in basketball. The big one, as I see it, is continuation.

It's a soccer mentality?! I'll never do it again.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by doubleringer

It's a soccer mentality?! I'll never do it again.

It's not really a soccer mentality. The soccer mentality is we don't punish fouls when the penalty for the foul is less advantageous for offended team than the current situation is. We still acknowledge the foul by calling out "Play on."

The only place a soccer-style advantage could be played would be a breakaway where a foul which wasn't a shooting foul would stop play but not the breakaway. (Perhaps a passer getting killed after the ball is away or a dribbler being held but he quickly gets away without anyone getting between him and the basket.)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The soccer mentality is we don't punish fouls when the penalty for the foul is less advantageous for offended team than the current situation is.

That's equivalent to what the OP was saying, or at least, that's how I inferred it.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's equivalent to what the OP was saying, or at least, that's how I inferred it.

Advantage in soccer acknowledges that there was a foul but awarding the penalty would hurt you. Advantage is soccer is expressly not ignoring the foul (even if the parents think that's what we are doing).

What the gent in the OP is suggesting is that we ignore fouls on made baskets. That has nothing to do with penalty hurting the offended team but we a misunderstanding of what advantage/disadvantage is.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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.