Crash…no whistle

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

Mark, I think he's saying that odds are, if there are bodies on the floor, there was a foul. I'm guessing video review would bear that out. I'm not sure what your disagreement is, here.

The disagreement, at least from my POV, is that I think this is an inherently flawed approach to officiating. Of course, when there are bodies on the floor the "odds" are there was a foul. But we don't officiate based on odds. We officiate based on seeing the whole play. And IMO that should be the focus, not reacting to the results when we didn't see the play, which is what the OP is really about.

I find it ironic that Johnny D suggests in this thread that people "should stop judging the legality of contact by its severity" then goes on to say that "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other", which is effectively suggesting that you judge the legality of contact by the severity of the result.

I also have a problem with this statement- "Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground." Are the odds in favor that there was a foul when two players are on the ground? Yes. But I strongly disagree that it is a "rarely, if ever" scenario. Again, basketball is a contact sport with big, fast athletes. Sometimes guys end up on the ground even though nothing illegal has occurred.

I just think that the philosophy that many support of "we need a whistle any time we have bodies on the floor" is a bad one. It teaches officials to react to the result and places less of a focus on seeing the whole play and knowing WHY bodies are on the floor IMO. Really, bodies being on the floor is irrelevant to whether or not a foul should be called if we are doing our job and refereeing the play. We will see the displacement or illegal actions and penalize those for what they are, not the result of bodies being on the ground.

Yes, there are occasions where officials don't have needed whistles on crashes due to indecision, being to close to a play, straightlined, freezing up, etc. but hopefully when those instances occur one of the other 2 officials had a good look at the play and helps their partner out. The OP, however, asks about a play where there was no whistle and he didn't have a good look. I don't agree with the justifications suggested in this thread that adhere to the above philosophy that I think is flawed.

I really wish the OP would have discussed this with his partners after the game as that would have been the most useful feedback in all of this. But I do think this is good for discussion b/c IMO there are too many instances of officials just reacting to the results of contact and punishing players and teams when they did not see the whole play and nothing illegal happened.