"And 1" a bad call?
 

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.

As far as I'm concerned, this is taking the concept of advantage/disadvantage way too far. A/D has nothing to do with whether a shot is made -- it has to do with whether the shot attempt is affected.

That official must think that a lot of D-I and NBA officials have no concept of what marginal/incidental contact is versus illegal contact.

As for waiting to see the result of the shot, I don't believe in doing that. I judge, at the time, whether the contact is illegal or not. If it is and we still have an and one, good for the offensive player.

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

I agree, call the foul if it's a foul, no matter if the basket is made or not.

Now, I have held my whistle on contact where a defender is falling trying to draw the charge, if the basket is made, I may ignore the block, if missed, make the call because the defender created the contact.

To make my picture clearer, the defend comes into the OP and contacts and flops. More often than not this contact has been minimal, but it is created by the defense, in my opinion.

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.

+1

I'm confused, are you talking about a defender with LGP who falls early?

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

IMO - Wrong! Fouls are fouls... on marginal contact (50/50 plays) we can have a patient whistle and then decide if the game needs to whistle or not. Think about this... why should we penalize an offensive player for making a good move and reward the defense for fouling? Give the man a foul shot!

In soccer:

Advantage played: a goal is scored.
Foul called: no goal is awarded and a penalty kick is given

Which best suits the offended team? Advantage.

In basketball:

"Advantage" played: a goal is scored.
Foul called: a goal is scored and a free throw is given.

Which best suits the offended team? Calling the foul. Every time.

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.

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.

Agreed, but this is advantage/disadvantage, which is part of deciding whether B did foul, and is (or at least should be) separate from the decision (in soccer) of whether to merely acknowledge the foul or to enforce the penalty (which is "Playing Advantage"). The latter thought process doesn't belong in basketball.

I think we're on the same side here.

I tried to point out the reason why advantage, as it's known in soccer, is NOT used in basketball (mostly continuation), and the the example in the OP was pushing for an advantage mentality. I'm not advocating one way or the other; I'm merely explaining the divide, as I see it.

Let 'Em Play ...
 

We got the exact same spiel at our local board meeting on Sunday. Full moon? Sunspots? Something in the water? (Imagine Twilight Zone sound effects here.)