Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
...who say get the first foul and stay out of trouble. Right or wrong, not calling the first foul could lead to an escalating situation. While I understand the theory behind not calling the first contact, I think it is rather risky.
|
Aren't you arguing for two different things here? Are you saying we should get the
first contact, and call it a
foul, because that is what one team wants? I would disagree with that theory, and say that puts the other team at a decided disadvantage if they want to run out the clock. If that particular contact wouldn't have been a foul in the first half, then it shouldn't be at that point as well. Or are you saying we should call the first foul? Then I agree, but don't we call
every foul throughout the game?
Maybe I'm talking semantics, but your comments point out an important difference in my mind. Of course we should call the first foul. But I don't think we should call the first contact. To me, that's a big difference, and I don't think we should confuse the two words. I had a fellow official once tell me we should call that first contact, because if we don't, coaches and players think we've stopped officiating. I think it's exactly the opposite - by calling only contact a foul, we've stopped making judgements on what is incidental and what isn't, and by doing that have actually stopped officiating. By continuing to observe and pass on incidental contact, even though we know one team is trying to foul, we are still continuing to officiate.