|
Add this to the list of "I just don't get you guys sometimes" threads. I think that sometimes officials (myself included) want so badly to set themselves apart from ignorant fans that we end up putting ourselves on the wrong side of certain discussions.
If I am 'prevented' from doing something, then I do not in fact do that something. If I am prevented from shooting a ball, then I don't shoot the ball. The Kent State player was not prevented from shooting the ball, he was deterred. The ball was initially blocked. But for the try to be 'prevented' per se, the shooting motion would have to have ended with no shot being attempted. This did not happen. The shot was not prevented. It was deterred, it was delayed, but that is all. It was not prevented.
I think the call was missed. That doesn't make the calling official a bad official, and it doesn't make me any better that I think he missed it. We all admit our own fallability as officials, but why is it so hard for some to admit it of others? I appreciate the loyalty that officials show each other, especially when I am the beneficiary. But this is a forum where we're all looking for correct interpretations that will allow us to improve. It seem to me that in this case some are are taking semantic license in coming up with an affirming interpretation simply to continue to go against the grain of the media and average fan.
jb
|