Pet peeves: Keep them in the game

[Raymond]

Boy some people will go to any lengths to try and make a point. A foul is a foul. But not every foul is clear-cut. When you have those gray area plays you need to use context clues in regards to what to rule.

Like it or not, being able to use systematic thinking in regards to the marginal contact and 50/50 plays is very big to supervisors. If you're one of those officials who is just steadfast in not using any type of thought process to play calling, don't ever complain when you see somebody advancing or getting better games and you don't understand why.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Since when do I care what a coach things about if I feel a call is marginal or not? Marginal is our definition of the foul, I am not looking for the value judgment from a coach, but when they show the video or they describe the play, I want it to be more than marginal to those officials (assignors) watching.

Just like the plays I show on this page, I want that most people feel that a foul was appropriate than those thinking it should not have been called.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Boy some people will go to any lengths to try and make a point. A foul is a foul. But not every foul is clear-cut. When you have those gray area plays you need to use context clues in regards to what to rule.

Like it or not, being able to use systematic thinking in regards to the marginal contact and 50/50 plays is very big to supervisors. If you're one of those officials who is just steadfast in not using any type of thought process to play calling, don't ever complain when you see somebody advancing or getting better games and you don't understand why.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Example: There's a drive to the basket and I could legitimately put a foul on two players. I know one has 4 fouls and the other doesn't.

Not brain surgery, but I really don't want to work with the person who fouls out the guy with 4 and then says "a foul's a foul."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Example: There's a drive to the basket and I could legitimately put a foul on two players. I know one has 4 fouls and the other doesn't.

Multiple foul?

Just kidding.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

Example: There's a drive to the basket and I could legitimately put a foul on two players. I know one has 4 fouls and the other doesn't.

Not brain surgery, but I really don't want to work with the person who fouls out the guy with 4 and then says "a foul's a foul."

But where's the fun if you don't foul that kid out?

[Pantherdreams]

At its most basic level. Just call the game that is front of you.(with whatever implications you feel that has.)

My concern with any officiating issues of judgement is that while context and situation are always factors, I (and I assume other officials) want the intent and application of rules to be the only determinant in dictating how the game is played. We make sure it is called the way the rules govern. Players and coaches get to make decisions re: tactics, style of play, quality of game etc.

( I always get a kick out of coaches who's argument with calls is "you are rewarding bad basketball" - I am just calling the game the way the rules instruct I don't have a dog in the fight with regards to how it is played)

I totally understand the being aware of the fouls you are calling and in higher level settings the expectation that officials are aware of the key and talented player and the impact on the game. I respect that too, though it is much higher level of officiating then I will likely ever aspire to.

However I am uncomfortable in situations where fellow officials or are the crew is expected to decide pre game that I'm going to be really tight on the perimeter play and let the bigs bang (persay). Then I walk in and a football team is playing a pressing bunch of shooting rabbits. Unless I adapt to call what I am seeing vs what I want to have happen I'm dictating which type of game is better and gets the lions share of the calls. Same as if you don't call the footwork/violations stuff you are choosing to reward athletcism to the detrimant of the team that spent time making sure their footwork was good in practice instead of running on the track or the weight room. Just call the game in front of you.

Keep them in the game (often determined by the way it is presented) can be something I get the same feeling about. I don't care who is deep or who wants to only play 5. But I'm not calling it one way or the other based on that. If one team wants to increase number of possessions and play 15 kids and the other team wants to play 5 kids the whole game that is on them. But if the number of possessions does get increased that means number shots, number of calls, etc are all going to go up to. So I'm not going to say well yellow only has 5 kids who can play and they need them all so make sure they only get out on the big stuff, but blue is just rolling people and pressing all over the place and doesn't care who is in the game so just call it without worrying about that stuff for them.

That is too much. IMO just call the game.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

At its most basic level. Just call the game that is front of you.(with whatever implications you feel that has.)

...

That is too much. IMO just call the game.

It's all relative, however it's expected to move up the ranks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Journeyman player A2 commits an offensive rebounding foul late in the fourth period of a close game. The official decides that it's illegal contact that gains a slight advantage for A2. It's A2's fifth personal foul, although this is unknown to the officials because it's only a journeyman player. The covering official charges A2 with a personal foul.

A few plays later, star player A1 commits a potential offensive rebounding foul, still late in the fourth period of a close game. The physical contact is exactly the same as the situation described above. The official believes that it's illegal contact that gains a slight advantage for A1. The covering official is the same one who made the call in the situation above. Only because A1 is a star player, he knows that this would be A1's fifth personal foul. He passes on the foul because it would take Team A's star player out of the game with only a few minutes to go. With no whistle, A1 grabs the offensive rebound and thunderously dunks the basketball, putting Team A up by three points.

Not if I'm the covering official above. Never. Ever.

Consistency. Integrity. Fairness. All come to mind.

Just to be clear (maybe I wasn't clear in my original post), I'm advocating calling both of these fouls (based on the words illegal contact and advantage), or calling neither of these fouls (based on the word slight). I'm not an advocate of just calling the foul on the journeyman player, while passing on the star player to keep him in the game (based on the words physical contact, and situation, exactly the same).

[VaTerp]

As much as some want to try make officiating and play calling black and white and act as if it occurs in a vacuum, that's simply never going to be the case. There is always gray area that requires context and the ability to "intelligently" apply the rules to each play situation.

In my experience officials who fully fail to grasp this are often the ones who also don't understand why their schedules never advance to where they think it should.

We can quibble with the phrase "keep them in the game" if that's what was actually said in the OP's example. That's a poor choice of words. But the context is clear. If you are going to disqualify a player- ANY player and particularly key players- your "marginal needle" needs to be tuned accordingly.

[bob jenkins]

I like to know who has 4 fouls so we be sure to remove the player on his / her 5th before we put the ball back in play (or are about to put the ball in play only to hear the buzzer)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In my experience officials who fully fail to grasp this are often the ones who also don't understand why their schedules never advance to where they think it should.

Same here. Same goes for those that try to never call what is expected by rules either. There is always a happy medium. Many for some reason cannot find that medium.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jerkins

I like to know who has 4 fouls so we be sure to remove the player on his / her 5th before we put the ball back in play (or are about to put the ball in play only to hear the buzzer)

You must be working with the same scorekeepers that I sometimes work with. Not knowing in advance who some of these scorekeepers are has gotten me into the habit of keeping an eye on the team fouls posted on the scoreboard in all of my games, even with experienced veteran scorekeepers, to prevent me from screwing up on a bonus or double bonus situation which could lead to a correctable error situation (unless it's too late to correct). Knowing that we're about to shoot bonus free throws also forces me to keep an eye on the shooter when my partner calls a foul, thus avoiding another type of correctable error.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

As much as some want to try make officiating and play calling black and white and act as if it occurs in a vacuum, that's simply never going to be the case. There is always gray area that requires context and the ability to "intelligently" apply the rules to each play situation.

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation.

There's a reason why this is at the beginning of the rulebook.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Same here. Same goes for those that try to never call what is expected by rules either. There is always a happy medium. Many for some reason cannot find that medium.

Peace

Yup. The opposite end of the spectrum is folks who think they can apply their own set of rules and personal philosophy to every situation regardless of rules/expectations.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may
be intelligently applied in each play situation.

There's a reason why this is at the beginning of the rulebook.

Yes, this directly precedes Rule 1 in the rules book and I find myself increasingly referencing it in pre-games and conversations with fellow officials.

Its a helpful reminder for some who get too caught up in trying to follow the exact letter of the law in each situation when judgement and discretion are required.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Its a helpful reminder for some who get too caught up in trying to follow the exact letter of the law in each situation when judgement and discretion are required.

It can also be used to rationalize not making the right call.