View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 20, 2007, 04:19am
SMEngmann SMEngmann is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 423
To kind of piggy back off of Nevada's post, doing things by the book will not get you in trouble, deviating probably won't get you in trouble, but if trouble comes, the trouble's big.

In my opinion being an OOO means calling a lot of plays that are "gotcha" plays that nobody understands. As officials, we want to call the obvious and use common sense. OOOs tend to lack common sense as they try to prove that they know every rule in the book. This is applicable at every level, and adhering strictly to the rules and the mechanics does not make someone overly officious, a lack of common sense does.

I agree that at higher levels, the more important to adhere strictly to the letter of the rules? Why? Because the rule book is your defense, and the coaches at that level are smart enough to know if you're setting things aside or not doing things properly. These little things give them ammo against you for later on. As an example, I was working in a national club tourney involving many former D1 players, and was watching courtside in a game after mine, when B1 clearly fouled A1 and the ball went OOB off A1. Official didn't call the foul and awarded the ball OOB to A1, at which point team B loudly complained about the call. The official said he was trying to save a foul, but the players wouldn't hear it, they even said, "Call the foul." At the lower levels, saving a foul is not a bad idea in this situation and can actually be good game management, but the official got himself in trouble by using it here and basically had to admit that he made a judgement outside the rules. Not good imho.

Another example is Joe DeRosa in the Finals a couple years ago with the TO called by Josh Howard. I heard him talk and he was asked why he granted the timeout even though he knew Dallas didn't want it called at that point, and his response was, "He called timeout." He followed the letter of the rule, which was backed up visually, and controversy or not, his call was obvious and backed up by rule. Contrast that to the Chris Webber game where the calling official missed an obvious and infamous travel because he turned his head to avoid acknowledging Webber trying to call the 6th TO earlier. There are proponents for both sides, but I personally would say DeRosa was more correct than the Webber official.
Reply With Quote