Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rich Ives
"Imminent" is too vague and leaves too much discretion.
That's why you get the big bucks - to decide those things. Get some advice from more experienced folks and learn how to call it.
If you always call it that way, if nothing else you'll be consistent.
But often wrong.
|
A college basketball coach told me the same thing one night. We were discussing allowing or disallowing the basket on a player control foul and he was complaining about inconsistency from one official to another. I asked, if consistency was the issue, why not go with the Fed rule that took judgment out of the decision and disallowed the basket on any player control foul. He said we were paid to make the call, and we needed to be good enough to get it right.
It is the same with "imminent", although NFHS does not use that term. It uses the phrase "attempting to make a play" which still leaves it open to umpire judgment. My suggestion would be to find out how your association wants "attempting to make a play" judged, and call it that way. Our State rules guy has stated in our rules meeting the past two years that the "player must have the ball" or it is obstruction. I disagree with that interpretation, but I will do what I am told to do.