[JRutledge]

but I am not belitting you.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
but you don't answer the question.

Show where in the rule book it says that certian kinds of contact in games is not a foul.

Check another recent post you made. I just answered that question in detail. If you unsure which one, I referenced Rule 4 and the Incidental Contact wording.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
Here's what is happening. Humans make mistakes. All of us do, referees included. Nothing happens to referees who make mistakes. Nothing is ever said publicly to enable the folks who pay the money to make the games occur and result in employment for officials, can ever know if refs were discipline or even corrected for their mistakes. They see you guys noting and sanctioning the players and coaches mistakes. they even see you correct time keepers and scoreboard operators mistakes.

Again, you show your ignorance. Officials get fired every year. The reason you do not hear about it, is because you either are not paying attention, or the media is not going to report to you about who got fired out of 45 official on a conference staff. Just like you do not hear about he hirings that happen every year. Usually you hear about those things if the conference desides to make that information public or you know officials that work in that confernence and the decide to tell someone.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
But, no one ever even know IF anyone noticed your mistakes.

At the D1 level, there is an evaluator at every game, at least in the major conferences. They go over the tape of the game, they sit there for an hour or more after each game to review those tapes with the evaluators and the type of mistakes are not just about a call. They are about calls that they did make, that should have been passed on. They are about their mechanics and positioning. They are about what they allow the coaches and players do to when it comes to complaining and giving out Ts. And if they are downgraded enough, a particular confernence just might fire that official. There is a reason D1 assignors hold camps every year and go watch officials all over the country.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
I guarantee that in a game between two fairly closely matched teams, I could, quite surepticiously determine the outcome 100% of the time if I was an offical who wanted to do that. If I became suspect, I'd just say, "Hey, I might have missed a couple there."

Not really. We do not make shots. We do not take shots. We do not decide to throw the ball away. We do not make FTs. We do not tell the coach to decide to play a zone or a full court press. Not sure we have as much control as you think. And in the OK St/St. Joseph game, did the officials tell the St.J coach not to call a timeout or for his star player to take a shot? Foul counts do not affect the other aspect of the game that coaches and officials have little responsibility over and that is execution.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
I further guarantee you that human nature makes SOME of us weak enough to try to do that sometimes. Referees, being human, too, are among 'some of us'.

Why? If I get paid regardless of how you think I called the game, why would a favor one team over another? Especially if I make more than $30,000 off one (just an example) conference and more if I work into the NCAA Tournament, I am going to jeapordize all of that to favor some team that will not make the NIT?

Originally posted by Judge Roy
They don't do the background checks on the NCAA refs for no reason, folks.

They do background checks on more than officials. Officials see the same NCAA Betting tape that the players and coaches and other individuals have to see. Remember the incident at Washington? You had a football coach that got fired for betting on the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a sport he has no direct affiliation.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
They do it because they suspected the possibility of gamblers buying outcomes from referees.

They suspect the possibility with everyone. Remember Arizona State a few years ago?

Originally posted by Judge Roy
Now, if the game is to be sustained, we have to remove ALL DOUBT that this knind of thing could happen.

Well considering that there have been more scandal with players and coaches, I think official's position is secure. But I guess you do not know who Connie Hawkins is?

Originally posted by Judge Roy
How? Call the rule book exactly as written - no exceptions, not points of emphasis, not advice from referees associations except to teach the black letter rules rules from the book and every official call every violation every time.

Just another example of your ignorance of the rules and officiating. Please keep the laughs coming.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
How does that help? It removes all discretion from referees. It makes their assessment much easier.

Well considering that I officiate 3 sports and there is always descrition. But then again, when we do call fouls to the letter, folks like yourself say things like "let them play," and "you have a fast whistle." So we are damn if we do, damned if we don't. And when we call fouls against a particular team, they claim that "contact" was not a foul. So not sure where you are getting your information from.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
I believe the rule book indicates that contact is a foul. Call all contact a foul. The players will figure it out pretty quickly. The game will eturn to one of speed, skill and finesse instead of the wrestling match it has become.

You might believe, but you would be wrong. Better yet, show us where in the rulebook it says that? I will buy a new one when you show that passage in the rulebook.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
And for you folks the best thing will occur.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
No one will ever saw again in a close game - "on three straight possessions there was contact on (name a team) that the covering official saw but 'passed on'."

OK, whatever you say.

Originally posted by Judge Roy
My point is this. No one gave that official the authority to "pass on it". He did that in contravention of the rules and it gave an advantage to one team over the other. IF he was trying to effect an outcome (and I have no reason to think he was), nothing more than that might have done it. That's why it has to be eliminated.

Again, just another example of your overall ignorance of the game of basketball and officiating in general.

Peace