Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Not to say I disagree or agree, but on every occassion where we've had potential last possession game winning/tying situation I've heard words from my crew chiefs to the effect of "let's not have any cheap fouls", "make sure it's a foul", etc. I also have been to a college camp in the Southeast where the subject of last-second game-changing plays was discussed and the speaker touched on foul calls and there being a degree of certainty (i may be a little off on the terminology) needed before you blow your whistle.
So we can't ignore that there is a school of thought being espoused by some high-level officials that there is a difference between a call you would make at the 7-minute mark of the game and one made at the 39:53 mark of the game.
Whether you agree or don't agree is one thing, but let's not act like that philosophy does not exist.
|
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't think that you're fully understanding what I've been trying to say either. And I think that M&M has basically been saying the same thing.
Nobody wants to see a cheap foul called at the end of the game. It sureasheck
should be a good foul if you're gonna call one then. But.....you should be making the exact same determination at the 7-minute mark as you do at the 39-minute mark- i.e. was it a righteous foul
both times? If it isn't, then you shouldn't be calling it at the 7-minute mark either.
That's the "school of thought" and philosophy being espoused by some high-level officials imo. It's only "game-changing" if you call something that has been consistently let go up to then, or if you ignore something that has been called consistently up to then.