Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Are you suggesting that it's only appropriate to be 100% sure on fouls, and not violations? I'm not sure I can articulate the "whys" here sufficiently for you if that's the case. If you agree that violations should have just as much certainty behind them as fouls, then you can use your own reasons.
|
Not at all. I agree completely on both fouls and violations that the only acceptable way to
call the game is if you didn't see it, it didn't happen. I'm just saying you didn't give me a reason why this is so.
Quote:
|
Whether he was out of position is a completely different argument as well. We're only talking about a case where the official thinks there may have been a foul; not where he saw a foul but simply didn't have the stones to call it; or worse yet decided he didn't want to "take the game away from the kids."
|
This is a disconnect, as I've not only been talking about an official who is unsure. I'm speaking to the game itself, not how we call it. The game is hurt when we make a bad (that is a factually incorrect) non-call just as much as it is hurt when we make a bad call in the closing of the seconds. Even if we were philosophically correct to make the non-call due to being screened or having bad positioning or needing a third official to get it but only having two, the damage to the game is the same.
It's just that we have to accept it.