Call Not Correct vs. No-Call Not Correct

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by JeffM

It has been my understanding that it is much better to miss a foul or violation than to call a foul or violation that never happened.

I suppose an official could justify a no-call by saying that he/she didn't see it, but there isn't a good justification for calling something that didn't happen without soundling like he/she was "guessing" on the call.

I think this is more of the old school philosophy. Today you are either correct or you are wrong.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

I think this is more of the old school philosophy. Today you are either correct or you are wrong.

I think you'll find the philosophy is more widespread than just the old timers. I'd rather be right every time, but if I have to choose, I'd rather be wrong on a no call most of the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

I think this is more of the old school philosophy. Today you are either correct or you are wrong.

I am not so sure that is that much of an old school position considering that most of us never work a game with more than one fixed court angle. There is always going to be scrutiny on a close call or two. I still would not want to call something that is not obvious.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jpgc99

I think this is more of the old school philosophy. Today you are either correct or you are wrong.

I'd rather miss a marginal travel then call one that's not there. I've always felt that way.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd rather miss a marginal travel then call one that's not there. I've always felt that way.

That's it! You're officially old school.