Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
David, you're on another one of these crusades that started back in November. ( Coverage Areas ) We're not calling what we want, regardless of the rules. We're trying to judge whether the contact gives either player an advantage that is unintended by the rules, which is what the rules tell us to do.
Not all contact is a foul. Not even all significant contact is a foul. You don't seem to like that reality. That's what the rules tell us. That is the rule. Maybe your idea of an advantage is significantly different from others on this forum. That's possible. But what's not possible is to try to carry the philosophy "A foul is a foul is a foul" onto the court. Because in real life, that just ain't so.
A foul in a 4th grade game may be incidental contact in a high school game. Incidental contact on the big man in the post may be a foul when it happens to the shooting guard.
You seem to want a one-size-fits-all, black-and-white philosophy; and there just isn't one. You have to judge each contact situation on its own. |
The problem is that the rules don't support this. I agree that not all contact is a foul. However, if we keep going to the traveling (violation) or out of bounds, as I brought up, they are completely black and white, and your choices to call or not call them based on your personal feelings about the level of the game are not consistent with the rules.
Real life - the rules are defined. They are supposed to be administered or enforced. Refs choose not to do this. This affects the game. Positive or negative? Most would say positive, but I feel this is a negative impact. I'd rather have a ref call everything than to pick and choose what they felt they wanted to call that particular game. How do I explain to the kids I coach, when I'm coaching "Well, that's the rule, but they're ignoring it today" - that creates a disadvantage for teams which do play within the rules.