Quote:
Originally posted by canuckrefguy
That's the best outrage you got? 
Perhaps I should have clarified that the philosophy, in this scenario, also includes passing on some fouls by the winning team. I think that's the reason I don't look at it as favouritism.
Not once, in these situations, have I ever run into a coach or player who, realizing the score was horrifically lopsided, had a problem with me or my partner passing on calls here and there. Perhaps a bit of a raised eyebrow by the odd coach - but after brief discussion, they're fine.
I find that coaches/players in these situations - where their can of whoop-*** is spilling out all over the place - just want the game under control, and aren't concerned with us passing on a few to keep the clock moving.
|
Keeping the clock moving is a good thing, which is glad my state has adopted the mercy rule, which keeps the clock running in the 4th in such games. Since this post deals with game management, I think we need to recognize that there are different types of games. Blowouts are games when we as officials need to be on guard to prevent the garbage, non basketball type stuff from happening, because these are the games when that crap happens. I think in some cases, a philosophy of loosening up is dead wrong because it simply can lead to more frustration and more physical play. We must identify and act to prevent the roots of frustration that can lead to an act that ruins the game. Sometimes that might mean giving the losing team the benefit of the doubt on a marginal foul call, but I don't think that ignoring fouls that should be called does much to help the game, because doing so will lead to escalation. What I do agree on, though, is that we should be a bit more reluctant to call game interrupting, annoying violations such as 3 seconds in games like this to maintain a flow.