Quote:
Originally posted by drinkeii
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by drinkeii
I would agree with the "Accept and Adhere" part, but would also have to go so far as to say I then would tend to agree with it as well. But the problem isn't with the people who choose to "accept and adhere, but disagree personally" - the problem is with the officials that just simply choose not to make the call that the rules and interpretations specify, because they don't like it. My question to these officials is "If you don't agree with the rules, to the point that you're not going to call them, why continue to officiate? You're damaging the game by picking and choosing which rules you "like" and "don't like", and enforcing/not enforcing them as such." It's not "me-sketball", it's "basketball", as defined by the rule and case books produced yearly.
|
You've hit the nail on the head...but it's the wrong nail. It's not so much as people not calling rules they don't like...it's people not calling rules that nobody likes and nobody call (and assignors are saying not to call). Someone that goes out with a rulebook in hand and calls anything they see just because it's in the book is not going to last long. Proper use of the rulebook requires a huge does of understanding the spirit and intent of the rule. There is not only a right call but a right time for that call.
For example, the removal of the shirt rule change this year. I can't imagine that I'll ever call a T where I wouldn't have already called a T (for unsportsmanlike behavior). This rules change is the equivalent of killing a fly with a nuke. It is also completely inconsistent with several recent changes of making things a violation instead of a T (elbows, deliberately going OOB or delaying returning, etc.)
|
So you're saying that it is just fine to choose not to call things you disagree with, even though the rule states you MUST do so (such as the wording for the intentional foul, that certain situations MUST be considered intentional and called as such). I don't remember basketball, or any sport for that matter, having the rules decided by what the public likes. Well, at levels below the NBA, anyway. Otherwise, Iverson would be called for traveling half the time he goes to the hoop - but because the public wouldn't like that, the officials ignore it. They're not there to officiate a game - they're there to make a good game for the people paying to be there.
And with that logic, we should be making "reaching" calls and "over the back" calls, even though there is no justification or rules to support it - only the fact that the public, due to TV Commentators, feels that they are fouls.
|
You just don't get it. There's more to the game than the rule book. The rule book is a guide to how the game is to be played/called, not a bible. You do have to know the rules inside and out to call the game correctly. But, you also have to know why the rules are there when they're intended to be applied. Sometimes that can't be gleaned from the print.
Any and every time there is contact, judgement is applied: foul or not, type of foul, severity (normal, intentional, flagrant), penalty (shooting or not). Calling a foul intentional is judgement. If there are enough components of the contact to possibly not be intentional, it will not be called intentional.
Have you ever seen someone call a multiple foul? There are often opportunities to do so. I've never seen it called and I've never called it. But, its a rule. It's there for a reason...not just when there happens to be contact with two different players that both could be a foul...but when both contact just have to be called.