Officiating to the score vs. officiating the game?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by FlasherZ

I've always been taught - and believed - that you should "call the game, not the score", especially when it comes to fouls. This is because it generates safety problems when a (usually losing) team figures out it can begin mangling another team's players.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot speak for this game, but time and score always matters. If the teams that are playing are mismatched and the outcome is decided, it is not the time to start calling very technical things either way. And if the team is losing big, you do not want to keep calling every little thing against them when the outcome is already decided and they already feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.

Agree with JRutledge. Time and score are always important, especially in the later part of a game.

We always need to know who is ahead and who is behind. Teams behind want the clock to stop. Teams ahead want the clock to run.

Team strategy in the first four minutes of the game is never the same as team strategy in the last four minutes of a game. Even with a totally lopsided score, one may find the team behind still playing starters, while the team ahead is playing bench players, or both teams are playing bench players, in some cases "very deep" inexperienced bench players.

Such late game strategy is as old as two-hand set shots, peach baskets, laced basketballs, and chicken wire cages around the perimeter of the court, and officials have to be aware of such to insure fair play, safety, and sportsmanship up until the final buzzer.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree with JRutledge. Time and score are always important, especially in the later part of a game. We always need to know who is ahead and who is behind. Teams behind want the clock to stop. Teams ahead want the clock to run.

From my pregame:

Near the end of the game, give the defense a chance to steal the ball before a quick whistle. When a team, ahead late in the game, wants to play "keep away" and doesn't want to shoot free throws, to call a "touch" foul (that we would not have called earlier in the game) would give an advantage to the team behind. On the other hand, when a team, ahead late in the game, wants to shoot free throws, call foul immediately when contact occurs so the ball handler doesn't get hit harder to draw a whistle. Let’s make sure there is a play on the ball by the defense. If there’s no play on the ball, if the defense grabs the jersey, pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player, we should consider an intentional foul.

The hardest part for me is figuring out what the offensive team (ahead late in the game) wants to do. Some want to shoot free throws (probably good free throw shooting teams), and others don't want the clock to stop (they want to play keep away). It's easy after the first foul in the "chess game" is charged, and one knows what the offensive team wants to do, but I hate being surprised on the first move.

[MechanicGuy]

Game management is very real and very important. "Keeping the game close" is an entirely different accusation though. If a game is out of hand, I'm not putting marginal fouls on the outmanned team, and I'm not going to miss anything committed by the superior side.

It's also entirely possible that the crew got together at the end of the 3rd and all decided they had likely been letting a little too much go and as a crew tightened things up.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

If a game is out of hand, I'm not putting marginal fouls on the outmanned team, and I'm not going to miss anything committed by the superior side.

Well stated MechanicGuy. Agree 100%.

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

Game management is very real and very important. "Keeping the game close" is an entirely different accusation though. If a game is out of hand, I'm not putting marginal fouls on the outmanned team, and I'm not going to miss anything committed by the superior side.

In these cases, I definitely agree with you.

In this game, it was the opposite - the crew suddenly started calling more fouls (8 in 4 minutes) on the leading team without an material change in game strategy or play (definitely no "keep-away"), while the visiting team saw nearly no fouls despite stepped up aggressiveness on defense (to close its deficit), which usually tends to generate more fouls on the trailing team. With that said, the purpose of the post was not to condemn or argue this one particular game - in the end, the team that played better did win.

I aimed to ask whether this is in anyone's mind as they look at a game. Perhaps something like "the first 2 1/2 quarters were tight, then one team started pulling ahead, so I need to look where one team might have been given too much leeway." Thank you all for your expressed opinions - I think I've heard that no one here feels a sense to "call to the score" except in extreme blow-out cases. Perhaps there's something subliminal or psychological to it, who knows?