Calls that may end a game

[PeteBooth]

I disagree with your statement as evidenced in the balk call about 2-3 yrs ago that ended a College World Series Game. If memory serves there was bases loaded meaning runners were going no-where. No advantage gained by the defense for F1 not pausing / stopping which was borderline at best yet the balk call was made.

I believe this type of scenario is also commented on in Papa C's 51 ways to ruin a baseball game.

There are infractions of rules and there are Infractions of rules if you get my gist.

I was doing a tournament game this past weekend. I was BU, F1 did not stop. I also noticed R1 was going no-where so after the play I called TIME and turned towards F6 make believe I was clearing dust out of my eye and said to F6 Go talk to your F1. The coaches knew what i wa doing and had no problem with it.

Therefore, that is the premise for my post as was the case in the Spurs / Lakers game.

There was a Foul committed (The NBA admitted it see Jerassic's post) but was it the type of Foul to end the game. That is what my OP is all about.

There is a philosophy among some officials and also has stood the test of time.

Let the players decide the outcome.

Pete Booth

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

I disagree with your statement as evidenced in the balk call about 2-3 yrs ago that ended a College World Series Game. If memory serves there was bases loaded meaning runners were going no-where. No advantage gained by the defense for F1 not pausing / stopping which was borderline at best yet the balk call was made.

I believe this type of scenario is also commented on in Papa C's 51 ways to ruin a baseball game.

There are infractions of rules and there are Infractions of rules if you get my gist.

I was doing a tournament game this past weekend. I was BU, F1 did not stop. I also noticed R1 was going no-where so after the play I called TIME and turned towards F6 make believe I was clearing dust out of my eye and said to F6 Go talk to your F1. The coaches knew what i wa doing and had no problem with it.

Therefore, that is the premise for my post as was the case in the Spurs / Lakers game.

There was a Foul committed (The NBA admitted it see Jerassic's post) but was it the type of Foul to end the game. That is what my OP is all about.

There is a philosophy among some officials and also has stood the test of time.

Let the players decide the outcome.

Pete Booth

The players decide every game.
No official's call can change that.

If you want to coach players on the rules then coach.
If you are a real umpire then umpire.

[thumpferee]

The luxury of instant replay!

I've been calling B-Ball for 12 years. When I first saw the play, It didn't appear to be enough contact to call a foul in "that situation". But on the replay he got killed.lol

But come on, he took a dribble and threw up a 38 footer, not a good shot. And even if the foul was called, it would have been on the floor IMO. So we're shooting bonus shots, not 3. (then again, with the NBA's continuation?)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

But come on, he took a dribble and threw up a 38 footer, not a good shot. And even if the foul was called, it would have been on the floor IMO. So we're shooting bonus shots, not 3. (then again, with the NBA's continuation?)

Actually the NBA rule is the same as the NCAA and NF Continuous motion rule. There is nothing special about the NBA rule on shooting.

Peace

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Actually the NBA rule is the same as the NCAA and NF Continuous motion rule. There is nothing special about the NBA rule on shooting.

Peace

I know there is no difference in the rule J, my point was it was not a shooting foul, by rule. Except maybe in the NBA where they might/would have gave him 3 shots if the foul was called.

JMO

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

I know there is no difference in the rule J, my point was it was not a shooting foul, by rule. Except maybe in the NBA where they might/would have gave him 3 shots if the foul was called.

JMO

I doubt seriously that this would have been called a shooting foul considering that Barry after contact took about 2 dribbles and then put up a shot.

Peace

[canadaump6]

Tim,

I agree that if we get a bad angle and don't see the play properly, we should use all relevant clues to help us make the most likely call. However, I do not think we should rely on what was "probably the right call" to help us get through games. The only time I will use something other than my eyes to make a call is on a possible hit by pitch, catcher's interference, or foul tip.

You say don't assume - well you're assuming that what you saw is actually what happened every time

Positioning is key to seeing the play properly. If an umpire is in position and still has to look for clues, then something is probably wrong.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

I disagree with your statement as evidenced in the balk call about 2-3 yrs ago that ended a College World Series Game. If memory serves there was bases loaded meaning runners were going no-where. No advantage gained by the defense for F1 not pausing / stopping which was borderline at best yet the balk call was made.

I believe this type of scenario is also commented on in Papa C's 51 ways to ruin a baseball game.

There are infractions of rules and there are Infractions of rules if you get my gist.

Pete Booth

Pete, I don't at all disagree with you. As with any decision made in a contest, wether during or at the end of the contest, good judgement should be used. Especially by an experienced official such as those in the NBA.

Sometimes the "right call", is, no call at all. However, to be able to discern when that time is, is definitely important and a trait that not all officials poesess. Even in the NBA.

[thumpferee]

This is the one place I come to when I need some expert advice. I have been reading this board for the past 6 or 7 years now and take alot of what is said here to heart and have adopted most philosophies as my own.

And one of those philosophies has been that we don't make the rules, we enforce them. That we shouldn't take the rules and enforce them as we see fit. That we MUST be consistant as officials to give both sides a fair advantage. To be consistant we MUST enforce the rules in any situation.

What is going on here?

Now we decide when/when not to call a balk?

When to call a foul or not?

OK, I'm done!

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

This is the one place I come to when I need some expert advice. I have been reading this board for the past 6 or 7 years now and take alot of what is said here to heart and have adopted most philosophies as my own.

And one of those philosophies has been that we don't make the rules, we enforce them. That we shouldn't take the rules and enforce them as we see fit. That we MUST be consistant as officials to give both sides a fair advantage. To be consistant we MUST enforce the rules in any situation.

What is going on here?

Now we decide when/when not to call a balk?

When to call a foul or not?

OK, I'm done!

Tom, as I stated above sometimes, no call, is the right call, and soemtimes it is not. Experience will tell you when.

In the meantime, I encourage you to stick to your guns and follow what has been working for you.

In about 5 years come back to this thread and tells us if you still feel the same about this.

Good Luck

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Tom, as I stated above sometimes, no call, is the right call, and soemtimes it is not. Experience will tell you when.

In the meantime, I encourage you to stick to your guns and follow what has been working for you.

In about 5 years come back to this thread and tells us if you still feel the same about this.

Good Luck

Thanks Jice, I was only playing devils advocate.

Don't tell JRut though!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

This is the one place I come to when I need some expert advice. I have been reading this board for the past 6 or 7 years now and take alot of what is said here to heart and have adopted most philosophies as my own.

And one of those philosophies has been that we don't make the rules, we enforce them. That we shouldn't take the rules and enforce them as we see fit. That we MUST be consistant as officials to give both sides a fair advantage. To be consistant we MUST enforce the rules in any situation.

What is going on here?

Now we decide when/when not to call a balk?

When to call a foul or not?

OK, I'm done!

Tom, that all sounds great, but you commented on a sport you obviously do not understand. Calling a foul in a basketball game is not like calling balk in baseball. And you still have not shown me a rule that suggests would take place in the NBA Playoffs that said there had to be a foul. Calling a balk is a little easier because there are parameters of what can and cannot be done by a pitcher for a balk. Basketball the rules have a lot of caveats to what is a foul and even suggest that if contact does not affect play, it should not be a foul. Well how someone decides what affects play or not is very subjective. And just bumping someone does not mean there has to be a foul in the game of basketball.

Peace

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Tom, that all sounds great, but you commented on a sport you obviously do not understand.

Peace

You obviously don't understand who you are talking to!

I have played all my life since I was 9 yrs old and was starting point guard in HS as a senior for a AAAA Section and WPIAL winning team. I have been officiating basketball for over 12 yrs now in Europe and all over the US.

A sport I don't understand, are you kidding me!

Bottom line is, it is "Selective officiating" if you decide what to call and when to call it!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

You obviously don't understand who you are talking to!

I have played all my life since I was 9 yrs old and was starting point guard in HS as a senior for a AAAA Section and WPIAL winning team. I have been officiating basketball for over 12 yrs now in Europe and all over the US.

A sport I don't understand, are you kidding me!

Bottom line is, it is "Selective officiating" if you decide what to call and when to call it!

Once again the last comment proves my point. You have not quoted one rule that suggest that what the officials did in the game was wrong. You are only giving your opinion as to why it was not a foul. It sounds more like you are being selective in how you interpret the rules. If you were standing on solid ground you would quote a single rule. It is not hard to do.

And please do not think anyone is impressed with Feeble officiating. There is a reason why many folks on these boards dismiss officials from other countries.

Peace

[thumpferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Once again the last comment proves my point. You have not quoted one rule that suggest that what the officials did in the game was wrong. You are only giving your opinion as to why it was not a foul. It sounds more like you are being selective in how you interpret the rules. If you were standing on solid ground you would quote a single rule. It is not hard to do.

And please do not think anyone is impressed with Feeble officiating. There is a reason why many folks on these boards dismiss officials from other countries.

Peace

Who said anything about FIBA? Or feeble as you put it. I just said Europe.

What are you saying, there wasn't a foul?

Even the officials said it was after the game!

Obviously you are commenting on a sport you do not understand.