Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
A good scenario canuckrefguy.
But, it's like a lot of situations brought up here...you'd have to see it. One official might "see" your description different than anothers...thus, calling it different on paper.
That's just it, I believe we call the game with a certain "feel" for it. Does it "feel" like a foul? Have we let them bang all night? Did we call, or no call, something similar at the other end that tied the game?
This is part of what separates the good officials from the really good ones...having a feel for the game.
You want a debate...here's one...maybe I'm biased, because I have played this game, but I think the guy that has played this game of basketball usually makes a better official than the guy that was in the band.
Example: I could know every rule in Hockey with a photogenic mind...and since I have not played that game, the guy that has would be way ahead of me as far as a feel for the game goes. Simple example...but effective IMO.
Dude
|
I think its about consistency within the framework of the particular game you are working. A close game with little time remaining draws a lot more attention to your whistle, or lack of, than a 30 point difference. I always believe that the players decide the outcome, if they chose to do that by committing a foul, then its my job to call and administer that foul.
On a general basis, I agree with your conclusion that ex-players make better officials, but I have seen the exception to this as well.