Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Obviously, I disagree; otherwise, I wouldn't have written what I did.
Tie game, 30 seconds left. Point guard is unguarded near midcourt dribbling the clock down until they start their final offensive set. As he's standing, not even attempting to advance the ball, he palms the ball and continues dribbling. You calling a violation? Not me.
40 point game, final minute. Center for the losing team sets a back screen without leaving time for the defender to go around it. You haven't had any illegal screens to this point in the game. You calling the foul? Not me.
Final seconds of the game, trailing team scores to cut the lead to 1 point. Defender intentionally steps across the throw-in plane and waves his arms, hoping you'll stop the clock for the delay warning. You stopping the clock? Not me.
|
Okay, I hear what you're saying. Although it's hard to hold the whistle when all of those situations are blatantly obvious. You have to call the obvious.
I get tired of the contradiction in terms I hear frequently in regards to officiating. I feel like a lot of times we say things because they sound nice and pretty (call it the same in the last minute as you would in the first) when, in reality, we don't believe at all in what we're saying. We assign absolutes to situations when there are always exceptions.
In the rules meeting the other night, for example, we were told in the SAME MEETING that the rule book is the bible, and we are to stick to it so we are consistent as an association. Then in that SAME MEETING we are fed this load of crap about 3 seconds. Why don't our rule interpreters just dispense with the bull%*# and give it to us straight?