Off topic question. Coaching youth team. Wondering if it's a rule that refs are required to touch the ball after every made basket, or just after final made free throw? Have had some inconsistent experiences lately. My understanding was that they didn't touch ball after made field goal. I am uncertain about whether, or not, they are required to touch after final made free throw but assume that are in that situation.
Officials are not required to “touch” the ball after a made basket. Only time officials should get the ball is if a whistle is needed to administer something afterward.
@rivermike5257 Taking this a little further to hopefully provide clarity, officials “touching the ball” aka “administering the inbounds” takes place when there is some form of delay in the game. If a shot is made, no delay. The official will not administer the inbound. Same for the final free throw attempt. The entitled team will simply grab the ball themselves and inbound it. Now, if officials administer the inbound after a delay in the game, which types of events cause a delay in the game? •A violation (traveling, out of bounds, illegal dribble, etc) During this time officials need to switch locations and show teams where to inbound, an opportunity for subs to enter the game is present, etc. •A foul (both shooting and non shooting fouls need reported to the table). •Administering free throws (players have to get into position, officials have to allow for substitutions & report fouls). •After a time out, at the start of periods/quarters (players need counted, officials need to ensure everyone is ready to begin including the players, table staff, and other officials. I hope this provides a full answer to your question. Basically any time the game is being restarted after some sort of interruption, the official will touch the ball and administer the inbound. If it’s just a shot being made or a final free throw succeeding, they will not administer it.
Regarding play #2 rebounding foul - I also have a very difficult time philosophically with holding a whistle until we see “what happens.” It’s either a foul or it’s not and the result is not relevant. In this particular scenario, you could easily make the argument it’s an intentional foul since there was NO play on the ball - the shove was intentional and designed to displace a player out of a well earned rebounding position. By not making the call, you reward bad behavior. Call the foul and set the right tone. Result based decisions are unfair to the game. If we are going to ignore fouls based on result, we should eliminate the “and one” after a successful goal. I may be too old school but freedom of movement needs to be returned to our beloved game.
@OrionCorsari It is hard for me too and in many ways I feel the same. That shove for the rebounding was a bit severe, I would like to think I would have penalized it as well, but how about if it was just two hands on the back instead, or a forearm against the back..? Both would be hand checking fouls but neither as severe as this shove. I think those are the instances to consider when deciding to allow the game to continue or not based on a patient whistle & advantage/disadvantage gained. It’s a tight rope to walk and both sides of it have their benefits & pitfalls, that’s for sure. As for that particular play around 07:45 and your comment on it not being a play on the ball, I think positioning for a rebound is a play on the ball, however the push was a little severe and I wouldn’t disagree with anyone’s decision to upgrade it to intentional. I do think pushing for the sake of rebounding in this instance was a play on the ball personally, as opposed to pushing someone this very same way who was merely standing at the division line and was not in any way involved with the play. Same identical push, but only the second one would I rule as intentional in this very specific hypothetical situation. Thanks for the discussion!
@@OpaTheOpenminded thank you for a well reasoned response. I agree that game flow is very important and that discretion is necessary when evaluating contact especially during rebounding. There’s a substantial amount of healthy physicality in the game that should be encouraged. That notwithstanding, I standby the foul call in this case. And more importantly, I wholeheartedly refuse to hold a whistle to determine whether a legitimate foul resulted in anything “foul.” I think it sends a poor message. Thanks again for reviving an old discussion and sharing your love of the game.
@@OrionCorsari Thank you as well. Your discussion on it is helpful to me also, as I’m sure it will be to many others down the line who happen upon it. This is why I will always strive to lay out my thoughts in their entirety, to benefit those seeking understanding at any point in the future. As for your statement that the game needs and deserves much more freedom of movement, well you certainly have a lot of support on that front indeed. The NFHS continues to make freedom of movement a Point Of Emphasis (POE) each year, and the rules themselves very much call for it too. NFHS minces no words in specifying what defines a foul in the Rulebook. I’ve read several articles by members of the Rules Committee emphasizing their desire for us to officiate the game with freedom of movement in mind. For one thing, they specifically want us calling hand checks as they are written in the book; something many officials have statistically resisted (but are hopefully slowly coming around towards). They want the kids safe, they want to minimize physicality in their pursuit of achieving this, and they’ve outlined very specifically the path to achieving this safety through their wording of what dictates a foul. To further this point, they specifically made a significant change to Bonus free throws this season, eliminating the 1 and 1 completely, and replacing it with 5 Team Fouls in a period/quarter being the threshold for 2 free throws when a Common Foul occurs. They felt the 1 and 1 was too physical (players forcefully position for rebound during 1st free throw. It scores. Then they forcefully position again for a rebound during 2nd free throw. That’s two opportunities for physical play based injuries back to back). So yeah, as I understand it you have NFHS’s full support to call these fouls as written without patiently waiting for a result. However, using our good judgement on what fits the game, a patient whistle could at times be the better option as The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules states: “[…] it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule […]” One could certainly argue that through being patient, an opportunity could arise for the offended, while a quick whistle may have denied them that opportunity (i.e. a fast break or an open shot). At the same time, the Intent And Purpose specifically begins by saying: “The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to EMPHASIZE cleverness and skill without UNDULY LIMITING FREEDOM OF ACTION of individual or team play on either offense or defense.” This is all straight from the rule book, placed right before Rule 1. So yeah, you certainly have the full support of NFHS to call these fouls. As mentioned, it’s their continued Point Of Emphasis. I will conclude in saying this as a final counterpoint to a patient whistle… A patient whistle may open the fast break, preventing the offended team from being further disadvantaged when they miss out on their fast break opportunity as the whistle blows. The offender’s foul has disadvantaged the offended, true. A patient whistle could potentially rectify that (or even show that no true disadvantage occurred at all). But is this disadvantage not fully rectified by the Rules when that whistle blows, giving a direct foul to a player, adding a foul to the Team Foul count, and edging the team closer to the Bonus if not outright granting them 2 free throws for already being in the bonus? Something to consider. Yet, as a counterpoint to my counterpoint, is it good for the game if whistles are blowing throughout, if a game flow is never achieved, and if the penalties pile on when we could have used judgement to determine if a disadvantage needed to be rectified? Lots to consider for sure. Sorry this was so long, I just think it’s a really important topic that needs discussed thoroughly.
Play 3, respectfully disagree...no LGP, contact on a shooters torso is a foul...offense initiated contact maybe but not unnatural jump and he didn't finish so IMO that's a blocking foul...you call the first foul, you don't have all that crazy rebounding action😊
Oh jeez Josh - an intentional push to the back of a dribbling player which clearly results in even the slightest stumble is a FOUL. This is not the way proper defense is played and no calls on plays like this do an injustice. I find myself disagreeing with nearly all of these let’s “wait and see what happens” calls. Coaches are completely justified in getting pissed off at us for these types of calls. It makes our jobs unnecessarily difficult when we have to justify to a coach we no called the very same contact minutes earlier because “nothing happened.” What if this was a bonus free throw situation at the end of a close game? Should we call it then just because the game hangs in the balance even though we ignored it earlier. Sorry Josh but I can’t abide this no call and wait on the call stuff.
I have to say, I watch all the videos and see where your coming from in most of the above instances but can’t understand how there is no advantage in the #2 rebounding scenario. How has the defender not gained and advantage by pushing someone out of the way? The odds they get a rebound behind a person boxing out is much less the odds of them getting it standing in front of the rim. That one just doesn’t make sense to me
Yeah, you may be right. The purpose was more of a way to get us thinking before we blow the whistle, and not just automatic reaction. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
On the rebounding call at 24:56 let’s say no foul is called. White 4 gets possession and trips over his opponent who is on the ground. Is this now a foul or travel ?
Really great question and there really isn't a great answer but my view of this play specifically is both players fell because they were fighting for the the ball and after white 4 wins the tug of war, fell down due to the momentum they both caused by this struggling action. Any contact during this time could certainly be considered incidental.
This was a tough video for me, because as you said these can be judge as legitimate fouls. I always try to set the tone during the "getting to know you " period of the game. That first 3 minutes is critical for everyone. A call should be a call all game long, a non call the same thing. The delay whistle is so difficult and the technique seems to adjust state by state.
@RogerSmith83 I invite you to revisit the comments on this video, as you expressed a similar feeling towards a “patient whistle.” Myself and another had a lot to say about it, unfortunately RU-vid doesn’t allow us to directly tag people in the comments unless we are replying directly to them. Specifically referring to OrionCorsari ‘s comment thread beginning with “Regarding play #2” and the comments which respond to it. Cheers and good luck on the upcoming season.
![Online basketball officials meeting on No Calls (a patient whistle) [OI meeting previously recorded]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
