"And 1" a bad call?

[Blindolbat]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

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.

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.

[Terrapins Fan]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

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

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.)

[Tio]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

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.

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!