Quote:
Originally Posted by LRZ
If you are old enough and have been doing this long enough, you probably were schooled in an entirely different officiating philosophy than today's, which is dominated by automatics, required calls, limited discretion, and central office micromanaging. The situation that began this discussion is illustrative.
Sid Borgia, I believe, once said, "I don't call fouls, I dispense justice." Applied to school ball, that's an exaggeration, but the idea remains valid, embodied in notions like advantage/disadvantage and preventive officiating. When I began, we were taught to apply common sense to the rules and mechanics, then allowed to use our judgment and discretion in maintaining good game management.
Now, discretion is discouraged, and automatic calls of all sorts are mandated. I, for one, do not see this as improving the quality of officiating or of the flow of the game itself.
OK, I got that out of my system. I'm calm, now.
|
I disagree with the blanket statement that "discretion is discouraged."
The reason the "automatic" fouls were implemented was because officials were repeatedly ignoring points of emphasis and directives to clean up hand-checking because it "doesn't affect anything." Additionally, judgment in what was an "advantage" varied so widely by official that it was impossible for coaches and players to adjust. And quite frankly I still see and work with plenty of officials that don't call 10-1-4 (NFHS ref?) fouls as diligently as they should. The codifying of these fouls wouldn't have been necessary if officials had followed the directives to start with.
But on drives to the basket or violations, for example, discretion and judgment of advantage/disadvantage are still encouraged and taught as far as I'm concerned.
And in the OP, that's simply not a technical foul by rule unless one's state has issued guidance to the contrary.