Make the call

Adam

Nevadaref wrote
True. The basic idea is that NFHS allows for a delayed whistle on noncontact situations. That's a FT violation or an unsporting technical foul. For contact situations, there is no provision for delaying the whistle.
The rules book states when the ball becomes dead and when it doesn't on such.

My advice for those wondering how to handle the sitch posed by the OP is to simply stick to the rules book and penalize accordingly.

Yup. Applying the case play for the unsporting technical foul to a play involving live ball intentional contact is a stretch. It may be a small stretch, but it's a stretch nonetheless, and one that could easily lead to an escalated situation before you decide to blow your whistle.

Raymond

Camron Rust wrote
...It is not my philosophy...it is the NFHS philosophy.

It's your philosophy and your interpretation. Nothing more.

If I do something not clearly supported by the rule book at least I'll own up to it as such. I have said so on a few occasions on rulings discussed in these forums. I'm not going to try to tap dance my way through a bunch of unrelated rulings and try to tie them together.

Nevadaref

BadNewsRef wrote
I'm not going to try to tap dance my way through a bunch of unrelated rulings and try to tie them together.

bainsey

Nevadaref wrote
My advice for those wondering how to handle the sitch posed by the OP is to simply stick to the rules book and penalize accordingly.

That would be the wise choice, of course.

However, as Cam has articulately pointed out, we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional (unless there's something I'm missing. Feel free to cite accordingly, if so.) Conversely, we are explicitly told to hold the whistle in certain technical foul or defensive violations.

So, in a nutshell, we're not told that we can, but we're not told that we can't, either. That's typically where these "I believe it should be" viewpoints come into play, when something isn't explicit. Perhaps the answer is to get something in writing (again, if it already isn't) one way or the other.

Adam

bainsey wrote
That would be the wise choice, of course.

However, as Cam has articulately pointed out, we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional (unless there's something I'm missing. Feel free to cite accordingly, if so.) Conversely, we are explicitly told to hold the whistle in certain technical foul or defensive violations.

So, in a nutshell, we're not told that we can, but we're not told that we can't, either. That's typically where these "I believe it should be" viewpoints come into play, when something isn't explicit. Perhaps the answer is to get something in writing (again, if it already isn't) one way or the other.

Seriously? The case plays and rules don't care when the whistle blows. The ball becomes dead on contact fouls when the foul occurs. Not when the whistle blows. Without a case play directly telling you to allow the ball to remain live following a personal foul, you're on very thin ice trying to pull that off.

The rule is explicit.

And two seconds without a whistle is a long time for the player who got shoved to think you missed it and decide he needs to take care of it himself.

Raymond

bainsey wrote
That would be the wise choice, of course.

However, as Cam has articulately pointed out, we don't have a rule or case that explicitly says to blow the whistle immediately upon contact, be it common or intentional (unless there's something I'm missing. Feel free to cite accordingly, if so.) Conversely, we are explicitly told to hold the whistle in certain technical foul or defensive violations.

So, in a nutshell, we're not told that we can, but we're not told that we can't, either. That's typically where these "I believe it should be" viewpoints come into play, when something isn't explicit. Perhaps the answer is to get something in writing (again, if it already isn't) one way or the other.

Where have you read that you can have delayed enforcement for personal fouls?

There are situations that are explicitly designated for delayed enforcement, is a personal foul of any type included in those situations?

If you want to wait to enforce an intentional foul away from the ball until A1 takes 2 more dribbles and then gathers for his shot that's fine. But at least have the guts, when your supervisor or a coach asks, to say its your own interpretation/philosophy.

And be prepared answered what you would have done had the intentional foul occurred on A1 who then took 2 more dribbles and then gathered for his shot. Would have also delayed your whistle out of "fairness"?

Camron Rust

You can either take a narrow view of case plays only only apply them when every single detail matches the case play or you can take a broad view of the case plays and see the concepts and philosophies in them and apply them to similar situations. I view the case plays as examples of the types of calls desired expecting officials to be able to understand ideas, not an exhaustive list of the exact situations for officials that can't think to just memorize.

By all means, if you sense escalation, you can't wait...but we were not really talking about what else might happen. We're talking about what did happen and assuming that is ALL that happened.

MD Longhorn

And people wonder why there's such a lack of consistency in basketball officiating. Wow. What a mess. Seems the NFHS has given the basketball officials just enough rope to hang their hat on when inventing a ruling on this case. I hate the invent-a-rule crowd. I agree you don't need caseplays to cover every situation ... but if you're going to write a caseplay that's not supported by rule - PLEASE change the rule.

Adam

Camron Rust wrote
You can either take a narrow view of case plays only only apply them when every single detail matches the case play or you can take a broad view of the case plays and see the concepts and philosophies in them and apply them to similar situations. I view the case plays as examples of the types of calls desired expecting officials to be able to understand ideas, not an exhaustive list of the exact situations for officials that can't think to just memorize.

By all means, if you sense escalation, you can't wait...but we were not really talking about what else might happen. We're talking about what did happen and assuming that is ALL that happened.

Fair enough, but the lack of a case play saying we can delay a call for any live ball contact foul leaves me unable to take that same step.

bainsey

snaqwells wrote
The rule is explicit.

Citation?

mbcrowder wrote
And people wonder why there's such a lack of consistency in basketball officiating. Wow. What a mess. Seems the NFHS has given the basketball officials just enough rope to hang their hat on when inventing a ruling on this case. I hate the invent-a-rule crowd. I agree you don't need caseplays to cover every situation ... but if you're going to write a caseplay that's not supported by rule - PLEASE change the rule.

I wouldn't say this is a mess, but it certainly does expose a messy potential.

Rules are, in a nutshell, agreements. That is, it's been agreed that this is the way we're going to play, and how we're going to handle these defined situations. In this case, it's not that a rule needs to be changed, it's the penalty that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, these disagreements will continue.

Adam

bainsey wrote
Citation?

I wouldn't say this is a mess, but it certainly does expose a messy potential.

Rules are, in a nutshell, agreements. That is, it's been agreed that this is the way we're going to play, and how we're going to handle these defined situations. In this case, it's not that a rule needs to be changed, it's the penalty that needs to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, these disagreements will continue.

There's nothing to disagree with here.

The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation. There is nothing in the book that says we can ignore that particular rule just because we think it's more fair to do so. The penalty is clearly defined, you just don't think it's enough.

The case play Camron is using applies to unsporting behavior, not contact.

Camron Rust

Snaqwells wrote
There's nothing to disagree with here.

The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation. There is nothing in the book that says we can ignore that particular rule just because we think it's more fair to do so. The penalty is clearly defined, you just don't think it's enough.

The case play Camron is using applies to unsporting behavior, not contact.

Except, there is no rule to support even the unsporting behavior case. By rule, the ball became dead at the time of the unsporting behavior. But yet, the case plays says to wait. But with what rule to support it? None. So, by your standard, even that case is incorrect and shouldn't be followed.

bainsey

Snaqwells wrote
The rule says when the ball becomes dead. There's your citation.

That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

Adam

bainsey wrote
That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

You don't need me to look it up for you, do you?

The point is, the rule is clear and so is the penalty. Dancing around asking "which rule" when the rule is clear just doesn't work.

bainsey

Snaqwells wrote
You don't need me to look it up for you, do you?

Why not? I did. That's how we back up our opinions -- with facts.

Raymond

bainsey wrote
That's not a citation, and you know it. Rule, section, article, sir.

In the real world, your supervisor is not going to sit around while you sift through Camron's 4 paragraphs of unrelated rulings and case plays to explain why you are allowing a basket when an obvious intentional foul occured while A1 was still dribbling. He going to look at the tape, see an obvious foul, then see A1 take 2 more dribbles and score and then see you whistle the foul. And he is going to say "WTF!!! Call the obvious, enforce the rules, and quit trying to be cute"

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether or not you would have the same delayed enforcement if A1 were the one who was intentionally fouled and then took 2 more dribbles before shooting and scoring.

Adam

bainsey wrote
Why not? I did. That's how we back up our opinions -- with facts.

Three reasons:
1. I don't have my book with me right now. I'm at work, the book is at home, which is full of boxes and junk since we just moved.
2. I've sufficiently described the rule that you could find it if you wanted to; if it mattered to you.
3. It's a basic rule that I'm sure you already know. The ball becomes dead when a foul is committed: unless, on a foul by the defense, the habitual shooting motion has begun for a try.

I'm not confused about why you want to ignore the rule and delay the whistle; I'm confused about how you can possibly think the rule is unclear.

bainsey

BadNewsRef wrote
And he is going to say "WTF!!! Call the obvious, enforce the rules, and quit trying to be cute"

Again with the word "cute." Since when is using your brains "cute?"

To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

Adam

bainsey wrote
BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

I'm not sure why you need explicit instructions to follow the rules as written.

Raymond

bainsey wrote
Again with the word "cute." Since when is using your brains "cute?"

To answer your question, though, it depends. If there's a chance of retaliation, of course, step right in and call the foul immediately. If A1 has a clear path to the basket, then a whistle would only benefit the defense, and I may pass on it entirely. Or, it be a delay. It's not the same call every time; it's an HTBT.

BNR, if your supervisor would stomp you a new mudhole for not whistling it right away, I'd certainly advise you do what you're told. ("When in Rome.") I have no clue how my association feels about this, because this is beyond a once-in-a-blue-moon thing. My only point is, without explicit instructions (for which I've yet to see citation), we're left up to our own ideas and influences.

You're right about HTBT as far as call it, not call it. But to say you would delay your whistle, allow the basket, and then enforce the intentional foul has absolutely no rules or case book basis. But now you are changing your reason for delaying the whistle from "fairness" to "based upon chances of retaliation".

And am I reading correctly that in certain situations you would allow A1 to take 2 more dribbles, shoot and score, and then call an intentional foul for what happened during the dribble? 😮 What would be your determining factor(s) to do that? One game you kill the play immediately. The next you wouldn't call anything at all. Then the next game you allow 2 more dribbles, a basket, then enforce an intentional foul. Would you consider that consistent enforcement of the rules? What trouble or beef would you get into if every time you see an intentional foul you whistle and enforce it based upon the status of the ball? How much explaining to coaches and supervisors would you have to do then as opposed to telling your supervisor it was an HTBT situation as to why you did it one way one game and another way the next.

And to say, as you did to Snaqs, that case plays from the case book are not legitimate citations is also wrong. And intentionals on break-aways happen more than once in a blue moon. This not some abstract concept we are discussing.

« Previous Page Next Page »