Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie
Whoa, Whoa JR.... How'd I get lumped in with the fan boys? All I am saying, is that you have to judge each play and determine who is responsible for the contact and did the contact create an advantage?
But I got the message from OS... If i am wrong on one end, I need to be wrong on the other to be consistant...even if it means I am consistantly wrong! Brilliant!!!
|
You misread me, Brendan. I was agreeing completely with what you were saying. I sureasheck wasn't lumping you in with fanboys, for sure. Hell, you know that.
You stated that "you have to judge each play as it happens". That's why I highlighted that statement. I then said that what you said is the procedure that should be used. Imo, that's the
only to make foul calls. Just look at the play, use your experience and knowledge to decide if a foul occurred and should also be called, and just call the damn thing. The only points that I was trying to make were(1) Don't overthink the game and make it any harder that it really is, and (2) getting into an 80/20 mindset, especially for newer officials, is kinda ridiculous. It's just another way of saying something that has been much more simply stated for about as long as Naismith's game has been played.....decide whether the contact was incidental or whether it was a foul. That decision is a straight judgment call, and it always has been imo.
As for old School's statement, I was echoing your response there also. Deliberately calling plays wrong in the name of "consistency" is consistently stoopid and consistently wrong.