Officiating to the score vs. officiating the game?
 

This is something that's been bothering me lately, because I see more and more officiating tending to lean this direction.

Tonight I was a spectator at a high school varsity game that was a very good match-up. Good, fast action, pretty clean overall. Point separation at halftime was 1 point. In the 3rd quarter, the home team (state ranked) really picked it up, and by a few minutes into the 4th quarter, they were up by 15 over their opponents.

It was at this point that the officials on the floor really started to call the game differently. The home team didn't change its approach at all, they kept the same strategy throughout. But in a matter of 4 minutes, the game officials suddenly started calling the game far differently than the first 38 minutes - giving eight fouls to the home team in that time span - while the visiting team turned up their pressure and fouls that would normally be called were not (and they ended the game with only 5 for the 4th quarter, giving the bonus only in the last minute).

To my eyes, it appeared that these officials were trying to engineer the contest and prevent the home team from continuing to run away with the score. The home team players and coaches were dumbfounded - they had no idea why these fouls were being called. I certainly wouldn't have called the game like that.

So - I suppose the question for y'all - are you seeing this occur more often? Do you believe in calling games differently to keep them tight?

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.

Home team ended up winning by 10 - but based on the play, it probably should have been 20 or more.

Thoughts?

I don't know of an official that would try to make a game closer with call selection. The odds of it happening are slim to none and slim is about out the door.

It doesn't take much of a change in play style to result in more or less fouls being called. It's a perception vs reality thing that is hard to see from the stands.

I was on the floor behind the basket with roughly the same view as the lead, so definitely not "from the stands" - and I don't believe the style of play changed, even subtly. I didn't have any investment in the game.

I have had some partners who bristled at me calling violations against a team that was down by 20+ points, as if it were "piling on" to call them. I guess it could be a subliminal, psychological thing for some; I don't know. This is one of those "softer" style things that doesn't seem to get much attention.

Closest I've seen: Near the end of an NCAA game this fall, the player with the ball - up more than 20 - tossed it towards an official with about 3 seconds left. The official started to dodge it then stepped back in front of it, avoiding a last second whistle.

Chippy ...
 

The only reason why officials in my little corner of Connecticut might "tighten things up" mid-game is if things start getting "sloppy", possibly necessary to prevent "hard fouls" and injury among two teams that, due to the score, or possibly other reasons, suddenly develop a "distaste" for each other.

Old timers here, many now retired (or dead), had an unimproved signal for such occasions, stick one's fist out and pretend that you're tightening a screw.

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.

It seems like you are projecting something that might not have been happening as well. A lot of times that are winning big take their foot off the gas and play less aggressive which allows their opponents to make plays and even make a run. So they might get calls that they were not becasue the winning team is not playing as hard or has reserve in that are not as good.

And you said that the winning team won 10 but should have won by 20. So it sounds like a game where a team might have took their foot off the gas and made it closer. That is not always about what is called.

Peace

Time And Score ...
 

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.

Near End Of Game ...
 

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.

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.

I am a neutral observer at the NCAA level in a couple conferences.

Two of my recent emails to crews contain multiple clips of a team that's getting blown out not getting foul calls on plays that require an official to make a decision. There is no excuse for passing on those plays while on the other end impatient whistles are giving the winning team And-1s.

Last game I observed, the supervisor was there with me and he was commenting on such plays himself.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Game Out Of Hand ...
 

Well stated MechanicGuy. Agree 100%.

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?