[mplagrow]

Originally posted by drinkeii
This thread raises several questions I have had since I started officiating 7 years ago. (and yes, I did read just about every post in the thread before I posted this)

1) Why have rules, if the officials are going to consistently choose not to administer them?

2) Why do officials take pride in the fact that they have "never" or "rarely" made calls, which by the rules, are required to be made? (3 seconds or technical fouls, for example)

I understand there is a certain amount of judgement required for the administration of the rules - but some rules are cut and dried, and when officials choose not to enforce them, because they a) don't like the rule, b) don't like the effect calling it is going to have on the coach, players, fans, game flow, etc, or c) just don't care (which I have worked with officials who have said this to me in response to why a call wasn't made on something i felt was obvious, but was in their primary, so I passed), it doesn't make sense to have those rules in place.

Just like a cop can choose not to give you a ticket for speeding, officials can choose not to administer a specific rule under a specific circumstance. However, in both cases, a rule/law was broken, so how do you explain to the people that feel cheated (or were cheated) by a lack of administration of the rule, why you chose not to call it?

A good example of this one is 5 seconds closely guarded. The rule says within 6 feet. If a defender has been within 6 feet guarding a player who has continued to stand or dribble, they have done everything that they need to in order to get possession of the ball. Choosing not to extend the count out to 6 feet, or not counting "real" seconds, or not starting the count as soon as the closely guarded situation exists, is penalizing the defense for doing what they are supposed to.

To an extent, I agree with you. I call the book, including three seconds if it happens. However, I've never seen the occasion to call the multiple foul, for example.