Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
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.
|
I didn't think I had to, you're the one who stated the only reason for the philosophy is the accumulation of fouls; when you obviously don't agree or you'd disregard that philosophy for violations.
Either way, you must have some other reason for applying the philosophy to violations or you wouldn't do it. I'm just saying you can use your own reasons and apply those to fouls, also, unless there's some reason they don't apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire
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.
|
The ref who is sure but holds his whistle anyway has different issues that aren't really at play here.
I agree that missed calls hurt the game, but I disagree that they hurt it just as much as phantom calls.