Quote:
Originally posted by theboys
Here's the problem I see with some of the logic expressed with A/D, and our simple case of the slap on the arm. Lets say both teams are in the 1-and-1. My star player passes to a teammate, and as he makes the pass, is slapped on the arm by the opponent's star player, who happens to have two fouls. The pass is completed successfully, but I, being the quiet and respectfully inquisitive coach I am, scream, "he was fouled!". As you run by, you tell me, "no advantage coach...by the way, sit down".
On the other end of the floor, the opposition makes a similar pass attempt. (You can see where I'm headed, can't you.) Our star player, who also has two fouls, makes a similarly poor defensive move, and slaps his man on the arm. But, because 1) his man isn't as strong, 2) his man isn't as good of a passer, or 3) no one makes a supreme effort to save the ball, we get the ball. Or, we think we do, until you call a 3rd foul on my star player. Same contact on both ends of the floor, different call by the ref. You call it A/D. I call it inconsistent. My star player, as he comes to sit on the bench for the remainder of the half, is confused. Fans go nuts.
I don't have a problem with judgment, as long as its consistently applied.
|
Judgement is being consistently applied. In the first case the pass was completed so we play on. In the second case the pass was not completed due to illegal contact so we have a foul.
Now let's switch things around a bit. Your star player has 4 fouls and slaps an arm during an otherwise successful pass. You're going to be happy if we have a foul now?
Or let's say we use A/D and let this go. Your star is still in the game - you're happy, right? Now you have the ball, there's a slap on the arm & to be consistent we let that go too...and you're happy as your opponent picks up the ball & goes in for an easy layup. Right? I mean, we are being consistent.