Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
OK, try this on for the sake of consistency. The game changes on a continual basis. Substitutions, style of play, score, foul count etc. How about a situation where players are getting frustrated and are starting to get chippy. Most of the crews I have had the priviledge of working with, will address it by saying we need to tighten it up. So according to you they are not being consistent because they have had to change the way the game needs to be called.
What if a team is fouling to get back into the game? You are definitely not calling the same contact late as you did early. We are charged with judging contact within the context of the game at that particular moment.
We have all been in games similar to the situation here and dealt with it differently. If the teams have been killing each other all night, we might make a call with slightly less contact, if the teams have been playing great all night, we might let more contact go.