Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
Snaq: I agree that it all has to be considered together. It has sounded to me like you weigh Article 3 more heavily than the Federation intends, as expressed in POE #1.
|
No, POE #1 specifically says "as written," and we've shown you the that you can't rely on 10-6 without referring to 4-27-3 as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
Maybe I do, as well, who knows. I have no doubt that you are significantly better than I at judging hinderance. I suspect that it may be easier to judge at the level of play you officate, as well. What bugs me, personally, is when I judge something incidental that I subsequently decide wasn't incidental. That means I passed on a foul, because of my own poor judgment. At this point, the only way I know to minimize that is to tighten up on calls similar to your example until I don't notice it happening. I try to judge for the level of play, right down to the individual match-up. That's about as good an answer as I can give you.
|
And this comes with experience. Yes, it gets easier as the players get older, stronger, and more skilled; but it also comes from seeing plays and, frankly, screwing them up. At first, I started by calling everything. Then, I went to far the other way and started letting too much go. I'm still trying to find the right balance.
The other key is a patient whistle. Don't be afraid to watch the whole play and blow late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
More generally, I buy in to POE #1. They believe we are judging too much contact as incidental. I watch varsity officials doing 3A and 4A games in my area, and I understand what the Federation is talking about. Our board has received complaints from ADs (coaches and parents) about rough play.
|
You'll find I'm not too concerned about coaches, ADs, or parents complaining about rough play; because in the very next breath, they'll complain that we're taking the game from the kids. It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
The Federation talks about "as written," but then leaves the language of Article 3 intact. You could argue they contradict themselves.
|
No contradiction at all. The committee perhaps feels too much is being ruled incidental, but it's still judgment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyBrown
The thrust of their argument is clear, however. They believe the current level of contact judged incidental is too high. They argue that we encourage illegal contact in so doing, which leads to an excessive level of rough play. You have seemed to me to show no sensitivity to their concerns, but that may be because you are just that good, and their concerns really do not apply to you. How do you answer their concerns, for yourself? Do they apply to you, or not? Do you have any doubts?
|
I may seem to be disregarding their concerns, but it's because I'm arguing against the opposite extreme (your expressed view). In my view, one of my areas of weakness is actually POE #3 and how it relates with #1. I struggle with letting too much go up high. My other struggle with regard to just #1 is rebounding in the post. I've had a number of players get a rebound while I'm thinking I should have called them for a push. It also relates, I think to illegal screens and such, off ball, that are getting ignored because officials are ball watching.
I don't think it applies to a slap on a dribbler going by his defender for a wide open shot (make or miss); but it applies to the slap on the dribbler that causes him to lose the ball OOB.