Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
They do not have to adjust to me. If they do not adjust to me, they do not have to hire me. I call the game based on my interpretation of the rules and my personal judgment. I work with a lot of other officials that share similar opinions on judgment and interpretation that I do. If they do not like the job I am doing, then there are plenty of officials out there they can hire. Also the rules do not call themselves. Officials call the rules. I see a lot of officials that “call the game by the rules” as you said, but their judgment is suspect at best. Players and coaches have to adjust to them as well. 
Peace |
But shouldn't they already be adjusted to playing by the rules (or outside the rules and getting called for it)? Why should they have to change game to game how they play based on which officials are there and which aren't, and what rules they choose to enforce that day?
It shouldn't be an adjustment - they should already be playing based on the rules of the game. By not calling them consistently (and adding in "judgements" which are personal, and not in the rules), we are forcing them to change how they play from game to game.
Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?