Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
1. Perhaps, but I still don't agree with the basic concept which you are espousing--to deliberately ignore one of the fouls and only penalize one of them when when you clearly observe both and know that by rule they both should be penalized.
|
I would change "should" to "could" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
2. Let me get this straight. You are purposely not doing what you know is proper because you don't wish to ruffle the feathers of the powers that be as you believe that they won't assign you games and that will cost you money.
|
No, I don't avoid doing what I know is proper. Frankly, I think it's proper to enforce the rules as my "bosses" see fit, so long as it doesn't break the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Hmmmm... I think that our departed friend JR would say that you sold out or are compromising your integrity.
|
Well, I think we have different assessments of the word integrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I wrote that it was cowardly. I'll stick by that appraisal. How is this any different from officials not whacking the home coach in an area where the school ADs directly hire the officials because they fear not getting asked to come back? Sorry, but if I go down, I'll do so doing it the way that I believe to be right. If someone doesn't hire me because I'm not afraid to make the unpopular calls, then so be it, but it won't be because any coach, assignor, or other official intimidates me into calling or not calling something that it believe in.
|
Interesting question. My first thought is that we're operating under the assumption that the assigner is impartial. That can't be said for the AD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
3. Again perhaps my visualization is different, but you wrote that a player was fouled on the way up (I'm assuming that we have a whistle at this point) and then B2 comes flying in and knocks the shooter to the floor on the way down. You even added that both players deserved a foul. So why not charge them both? That second one certainly sounds excessive to me.
Now I'm picturing a drive to the hoop here by a guard or a wing player, not a post player powering up through a double or triple team like Dwight Howard and taking contact from multiple defenders. If the former, then this situation is exactly why the multiple foul rule is in the book. It prevents that second defender from coming in late and punishing the guy taking it to the rim. Those are the kind of actions which everyone in the gym can see , and unless dealt with strongly and appropriately, will cause retaliation, further rough play, and even possibly a fight. Calling multiple fouls on post play situations will get you a steady diet of rec ball, but failing to punish a cheap shot will also prevent you from reaching where you wish. I don't normally disagree with much that you post and feel that I am being harsh with you about this, but I really feel that letting what you described go unpenalized is a serious error. What if the shooter had broken his wrist as a result of being knocked down by the second fouler? How are you going to defend a no call when asked why the crew didn't penalize B2 for anything when he caused a severe injury? If that kid had been seriously injured, could you permit B2 to continue to participate with a clear conscience?
|
You are picturing it differently. Picture a transition play, kids are scrambling (7th grade boys). B1 goes up with the shooter, both running, and knocks him off trajectory but not enough to knock him down. He knocks him into a moving B2 who had chosen an angle that would have avoided contact initially.
And no, I didn't have a whistle before B2's contact, my whistles aren't generally that fast anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
4. None, but it wasn't because I passed on any situations that warranted it.
|
I'd like to see you answer BNR's question on this one.