Crash…no whistle

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Chris Whitten

I need some help. Had this happen a couple of weeks ago and again tonight: I am at T in a 3 whistle game when the dribbler goes right down the middle of the lane and crashes into the defender about 6-8 ft from the goal. Due to player traffic I can't see if the defender has established LGP. A call from me would be nearly a guess. No whistle from C or L, either of which should have had a better view of defender position than I had. Of course, coaches hit the roof. I don't blame them. There was enough contact to have had a block or a charge.

I think we would all prefer for C or L to make this call. However, do you as T come with a delayed whistle because "someone needs to have a whistle on a crash in the paint?" Is there any way I can sharpen up to this play to help my partners who may "freeze" and make no call?

Did you talk to your partners later to ask what they saw?

[Raymond]

If you have an open look, come with a late whistle. But if you can't see it, then you need to leave it alone and have a discussion with your partners at halftime or after the game.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Yes, one player surely initiated contact before the other and 94.673% of the time its clear who it was and the advantage/disadvantage gained. But there are those times when the contact is marginal, has no real affect on the play (even if one player technically initiated the contact), or its difficult to tell who got their first so its ok to pass on it.

As I stated earlier in relation to the OP, unless you KNOW your partner blew it big, its best to leave it alone.

My post was not intended to address advantage gained, nor did it necessarily have anything to do with the severity of the contact. I was disputing your statement that there are instances where there are 50/50 plays between a player with the ball (a shooter specifically) and a defender getting to a particular spot. By rule, this is simply not true. That does not mean there has to be a call every time there is contact. Sometimes there is incidental contact that can be ignored. Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground.

Finally, to address a statement you make in this post, you should stop judging the legality of contact by its severity. There are times when marginal contact is and should be a foul. There are times severe contact is and should not be a foul. The question is not whether the contact is marginal or severe, it is whether or not it is incidental.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground.

I disagree with this. I would say, most times, there should be a whistle if it's seen properly. I wouldn't call the exceptions rare, though.

I good legal screen can result with both players on the ground and no valid foul to call. As can a lot of loose ball contact where both players come from equally advantageous positions.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Adam

I disagree with this. I would say, most times, there should be a whistle if it's seen properly. I wouldn't call the exceptions rare, though.

I good legal screen can result with both players on the ground and no valid foul to call. As can a lot of loose ball contact where both players come from equally advantageous positions.

I have seen very few screens where both players have ended up on the ground. Normally the person setting the screen is prepared for the contact. They may be displaced, but they do not often fall. More often, the person being screened ends up on the ground.

In my experience, on loose balls where there is severe contact resulting from players coming into the play from equally advantageous positions, one player ends up on the ground and the other player ends up with the ball.

Again, I am not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare. Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Finally, to address a statement you make in this post, you should stop judging the legality of contact by its severity. There are times when marginal contact is and should be a foul. There are times severe contact is and should not be a foul. The question is not whether the contact is marginal or severe, it is whether or not it is incidental.

Not sure where you gitte impression I use severity to judge the legality of contact. It is one of the factors used but much more goes into determining calls that should and should not be made.

As for marginal vs incidental, around here those terms are intechangeable and are used to describe contact that does not affect play. The term marginal is more preferred among the higher level refs in my area.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

I good legal screen can result with both players on the ground and no valid foul to call.

Hmmm.... Never say never I guess, but if a legal screen is set, and that screener ends up on the ground, I can't envision a scenario in which a foul shouldn't be called on the defense. If the screen is legal, D on the ground= play on, O on the ground= almost certainly something. Maybe I'd have to see it to be convinced, but can you elaborate?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Depends on how much you saw and how bad you think it was. If the offensive players ends up on top of the defender on the floor then you probably need a whistle, right or wrong. If you think the L or C could be no-calling a defender leaving early or something like that leave it alone. But if you have two players on the floor then you probably have something. In certain situations I think a total guess is better than nothing at all. It's all a feel for the situation and the temperature of the game.

A late correct whistle is ALWAYS better than an incorrect no-call....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Yes, one player surely initiated contact before the other and 94.673% of the time its clear who it was and the advantage/disadvantage gained. But there are those times when the contact is marginal, has no real affect on the play (even if one player technically initiated the contact), or its difficult to tell who got their first so its ok to pass on it.

The rules don't base the fouls on who initiates contact, regardless of how many officials use that term. In fact, the foul is often on the player who didn't initiate contact simply because they were not in a legal position. Basing fouls in who initiated the contact will often lead to the wrong foul call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Hmmm.... Never say never I guess, but if a legal screen is set, and that screener ends up on the ground, I can't envision a scenario in which a foul shouldn't be called on the defense. If the screen is legal, D on the ground= play on, O on the ground= almost certainly something. Maybe I'd have to see it to be convinced, but can you elaborate?

The rule on a screen requires the defender to attempt to stop upon contact, and specifically states the contact may be severe and still be incidental. It's under the incidental contact rule in rule 4.

[bainsey]

Good discussion.

I had a similar play earlier this year, two man. I was the L, had a shooter drive the lane, both he and a defender go down, but too much traffic to see the contact. I was not comfortable doing nothing, but I'd be even less comfortable guessing, even with "90% rule" in the back of my head.

Some here say it's okay to guess, under the circumstances. I'd like some elaboration on that.

[Rich1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rules don't base the fouls on who initiates contact, regardless of how many officials use that term. In fact, the foul is often on the player who didn't initiate contact simply because they were not in a legal position. Basing fouls in who initiated the contact will often lead to the wrong foul call.

The problem with posts is the that what's intended isn't always what's read since we're not face to face for clarification. I understand exactly what you are saying and ref accordingly. My intent was to point out that while most of the time we have a clear basis on who was at fault for the contact (legal position, initiated first, etc.) there are times that we do not and therefore it is better to trust your partners no call rather than come in with a guess based on nothing.

However, if you are certain you had a better angle and/or you have enough to feel VERY confident reaching out to get it than I'm ok with that too; but you better be able to defend it with a lotmore than "I thought something happened there) if your partner wants to know why you were swimming in his end of the pool.

Again, I advocate erring on the side of trust and staying in your primary as much as you can. I am by no means territorial and think a good crew will pick up calks outside their PCA a few times per game but in my experience it happens when we know a partner was strait lined or we actually saw something big that the others did not.

Finally, to reiterate, completely agree with those who have made additional points about what constitutes a foul. Simply pointing out that there are some times good reasons a foul is not called so trust your partners as much as you can.

[Chris Whitten]

I meant to ask them, Adam, but failed to do it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

A late correct whistle is ALWAYS better than an incorrect no-call....

And a late INCORRECT whistle is always worse than an incorrect no-call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And a late INCORRECT whistle is always worse than an incorrect no-call.

I'd argue against that. I'd rather see someone make an incorrect call on a block/charge where both players go to the floor and a whistle is obviously needed.

We can work on fixing the incorrect call...failure to put a whistle on a play that needs it is usually a bigger problem in my experience.