Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
Quote:
Originally posted by drinkeii
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by drinkeii
This leads back to a general thread running through most of my posts - a large number of officials choose to ignore the rules as they are written, in favor of doing what is commonly accepted or what they feel is right. As I've said a number of times, it's not "me-sketball", it's "Basketball", and the rules are defined by a committee, interpreted by interpreters, and expected to be enforced by the officials. I wonder what the game would be like if we actually enforced the rules as written.
|
It would be a miserable experience and the game would probably join the ranks of curling in popularity.
|
You honestly feel this way? Then I guess we should just throw out the rule book. I mean, otherwise, how can it be fair to go from one official to the next, having one choose which rules they like, and which ones they don't, and enforcing them however they want? Associations try to control this somewhat by dictating how they want things enforced - but I do find it funny that most of what I say fits exactly with our rules interpreter from our chapter, but many officials still ignore some of the things he says. And he is elected every couple of years to the position, and is very well liked.
|
It's part of the game, almost every foul when a team is behind in the closing moments is intentional. Until the rule is changed to say every foul is two shots and the ball, officials will have to use judgement.
It seems that there is a common theme to all your posts, a very anti-official one IMO, that if it is not black and white from the rule book, the officials are choosing what rules they like.
My goodness, every call requires judgment, and you seem to ignore that fact.
Officiating is more of an art than a science, you don't seem to get that.
|
Well, some calls require judgement. Others are stated in black and white, and the fact that some officials (and I am an official... i happen to subscribe to this philosophy) pick and choose which rules to enforce and which to ignore to me is not correct. If every call required judgement, when the ball went out of bounds, some officials might just say "well, close enough to saving it, i'll let it go". The rules say what an intentional foul is. When officials choose to ignore the rules, in favor of what people WANT them to call (and by people, i mean coaches who've never read the rules, bystanders who've never read the rules, etc...), they're not doing their job. If you ask any interpreter, they will back the rulebook. Why is it so tough for the officials under that interpreter to follow their directions and just make the calls as the people who wrote the rules intended?
You state that almost every foul at the end of the game is intentional. The rules do state it is 2 shots and possession for an intentional foul. Where is the problem with this?
I am not being anti-official. I am an official. I am being anti-"I am an official, but i'm going to do whatever I want regardless of the rules". How do you play a game without rules? Even streetball has a number of unwritten rules that you can walk on to almost any street court in the country and have a basic understanding of what they're playing by. Organized basketball has organized rules and cases, and officials who are supposed to follow them - not use the idea of judgement to allow them to ignore the rules in favor of making what they consider to be a better game.