Pet peeves: Keep them in the game

[RadioBlue]

I agree with you, JRut. And to take it a step further, if I've got a player who's been playing like a goon hockey enforcer, I won't think twice about giving that player their 5th. It's about making the game better, IMO.

[bainsey]

At least one of us falls on your side, UNI.

I had a partner about a decade ago who insisted on finding out who had four fouls. I thought it reeked of a lack of integrity. It's our job to call the fouls, not be concerned about how many they have. This partner acted more like he cared what others thought, rather than just doing his job.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

At least one of us falls on your side, UNI.

I had a partner about a decade ago who insisted on finding out who had four fouls. I thought it reeked of a lack of integrity. It's our job to call the fouls, not be concerned about how many they have. This partner acted more like he cared what others thought, rather than just doing his job.

In the 4th quarter I will check both books for players with 4 fouls. I want to make sure there are no discrepancies.

And whether you agree or not, it is a big deal to foul somebody out on a questionable call; it's not the same as calling a questionable foul to give them their 1st or 2nd.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And whether you agree or not, it is a big deal to foul somebody out on a questionable call; it's not the same as calling a questionable foul to give them their 1st or 2nd.

If a player has five fouls, wouldn't a questionable 1st or 2nd also be included?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

If a player has five fouls, wouldn't a questionable 1st or 2nd also be included?

Players can recover from an early bad call. They can't recover from a bad fifth foul or bad call in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[just another ref]

There is an obvious problem here that nobody has mentioned. (have they?)
If you take the position that you will be aware of a player with four fouls and take care not to foul this player out on a "marginal call" then that will lead you to lean in the other direction and allow this player to get away with something which would have been a foul earlier in the game, or, even worse, to pass on a foul on this player that might still be a foul on another player.

I find both of these possibilities to be as unacceptable as anything else in this thread.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is an obvious problem here that nobody has mentioned. (have they?)
If you take the position that you will be aware of a player with four fouls and take care not to foul this player out on a "marginal call" then that will lead you to lean in the other direction and allow this player to get away with something which would have been a foul earlier in the game, or, even worse, to pass on a foul on this player that might still be a foul on another player.

I find both of these possibilities to be as unacceptable as anything else in this thread.

The fact that you do not call a "marginal" foul means that it is not likely a foul. Why would I want to call something that is not really there? My goal is to call the obvious, not call something that is marginal, whether it is on the star player or the 12th player on the bench.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is an obvious problem here that nobody has mentioned. (have they?)
If you take the position that you will be aware of a player with four fouls and take care not to foul this player out on a "marginal call" then that will lead you to lean in the other direction and allow this player to get away with something which would have been a foul earlier in the game, or, even worse, to pass on a foul on this player that might still be a foul on another player.

I find both of these possibilities to be as unacceptable as anything else in this thread.

The ultimate desire is not to call any "marginal" fouls. But again, whether you like it or not, a marginal foul in the last 2 minutes or as a 5th foul is amplified, and less forgivable. It is a likely to get video sent to a supervisor. And the argument that a early marginal has the same effect as a late marginal call just doesn't fly.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is an obvious problem here that nobody has mentioned. (have they?)
If you take the position that you will be aware of a player with four fouls and take care not to foul this player out on a "marginal call" then that will lead you to lean in the other direction and allow this player to get away with something which would have been a foul earlier in the game, or, even worse, to pass on a foul on this player that might still be a foul on another player.

I find both of these possibilities to be as unacceptable as anything else in this thread.

+1

The reason why we get so caught up with late calls is the incapacity for our brains to recall all of them. The reality is, in a one-point game, we very likely did something to affect the game's outcome. If that happens in the first three quarters, very few remember, and we get a pass. That doesn't remove the fact that it happened, though.

The same goes for fouls. A player is disqualified because he commits five fouls. All five count. If one or two are marginal, they still count, regardless of when they happened. The reason people get upset about a marginal last one is because they've likely forgotten how the others came. Still, they were called, and the effect is indeed the same. Just because we don't remember how they happened doesn't mean they didn't happen.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

There is an obvious problem here that nobody has mentioned. (have they?)
If you take the position that you will be aware of a player with four fouls and take care not to foul this player out on a "marginal call" then that will lead you to lean in the other direction and allow this player to get away with something which would have been a foul earlier in the game, or, even worse, to pass on a foul on this player that might still be a foul on another player.

I find both of these possibilities to be as unacceptable as anything else in this thread.

Sometime calls you make early in the game may not be "right" calls. So for the sake of consistency I prefer not to just make a call because it was made earlier in the game. Your "possibilities" are not logical. You are implying that at any point of the game a call must be made if a similar call was made earlier. You are assuming earlier calls were correct and that during the course of the game the officials and players stay stagnant and do not evolve.

Your second point is also assuming that since we may try and be more diligent on making a call that "counts" to foul a player off we do not apply the same scrutiny or expectations on other players also doesn't make sense. It's like saying "#5 has 4 so let's make it count, but for the other 9 players just call em as you feel it."