Pet peeves: Keep them in the game

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... you do your best to know what a foul is and call it the same from start to finish for everybody on the court ... opposed to doing anything specifically designed to "keep them in the game," no matter the circumstances.

Agree.

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.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, but I must also state my usual caveat, "When in Rome ...".

[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

[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)

[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.

[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 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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Sure it can. But good officiating requires knowing the difference.

That's sort of the whole point.