This topic came up on a coaching site I visit. 6th grade all-star team up 40 points, 4th qtr, still pressing with starters in. Is there a point where, as a ref, you say to heck with the rules and start giving all the breaks to the team getting creamed.

Is it appropriate as a ref to nudge the jerk coach a little and say, "hey, time to call off the dogs".

Not for me.
 

I will not change what I have been doing.
mick

I wouldn't toss the rules out the window here. Still working the game fairly. But I might make a suggestion to the coach that he should "call off the dogs."

Arizona got a national write up (can't remember where) about a program called "Pursuing Victory with Honor." I like that phrase and I might remind the coach that this behavior does help his players pursue victory with honor. Also, if tournament play or near end of season, I might let him know that, "I'd hate it if one of my stars got injured after the game was already decided."

Drop hints but we can only ref, not coach.

Agree with Mick. I don't think that coaches should tell us how to call a game, and I think that it's only fair that we not tell the coaches how to do their job either. You may have a case where a coach is trying to install a new press, and he wants to work on it. Who knows? Just be as consistent as you can. If there's an "unsporting" factor involved, the league administration will get involved if they have concerns.

Most tournaments in Minnesota have "mercy" rules for this age group. If a team is up by > 20 points, no press is allowed. If 4th quarter, running time. Also, "all star" teams usually don't get to participate in tournaments here unless they play up a grade. Very rare that a team gets beat by more than 20 points.

Running up the score
 

I concur with Mick. I often have to remind coaches to coach, and let me do the officiating. Seems like a double-standard to intervene at this point.

The rec league that I work for has a local rule that doesn't allow backcourt pressure after a 15-point lead. After a 25 point lead, we set the scoreboard to zeros on both sides (but we still keep the running score in the book).

Our league uses 6-minute quarters with stop clocks and no shot clock. I've often wondered why coaches continue to let their kids throw baseball outlet passes and jack threes with a 20 point lead. It seems to me that if there's no shot clock, the more time you can run off, the better your chances for victory.

Oh well. I've never coached before, so I should probably keep my mouth shut.

It's a tough choice when you are coaching and you get into a situation like this. We recently had a game we won 93-35. We pulled off the press after the first quarter. The second half we went with no fast breaks, no steals above the three point line. On offense, I'm not going to tell my kids to quit shooting. If the other team is not going to play defense, that is their problem. We just ran our normal offense, took our shots when they were open. I really don't know what would be more embarassing, running your normal offense, or playing keep away for 3 minutes. If I were in that situation, I would prefer a team to just run their normal offense and take their shots when they got them.

As a coach I've been in that situtation many times over the past five years. Once we get up by 20 or some teams 15. I take the press off, I do not allow the kids to break, they may not steal, and they must make five passes before they can shoot. I also have taken it as an opportunity if one of my post players was trying to learn a new move of making it a point to get her the ball and let her work on her skill. But I never want to be accused of running up the score on a team. Do any other coaches have things they do that I dont that could be helpful to me?

I tend to call quick fouls on the pressing team until they get the idea.

Most of the leauges/tournaments have press rules after 15/20 points, but if not, and they keep pressing a really bad team...

An observation:

When a team, leading by a large margin, is still playing their first 7 guys, I have often wondered, "Why?" How can it be prevented?

My only solution, and probably quite imperfect, is for the losing team to put in their known subs as a sign of concession. That sends a proper message to the winning team who may then react in kind.

Without the loser's concession line-up, the winning team stands to lose a comfortable lead with its subs against the loser's starters. The winning team risks the loss of timing and coordination, that the team had achieved that night, by merely sitting them.

Yes, I think the losing team should, properly, make the first concession move and set the path for the higher scoring team to follow.

Obviously, the losing team "needs the floor work", but the longer their *best* is out there *practicing*, then the longer, I think, the better team should be allowed to play their team the way the coach sees as best for the team, without penalty.

mick

Mick I agree. It makes sense. That could be a good move on the losing coach's part.

However, if I'm coaching a team and the game has been decided, in my favor, because of a blowout then I'm thinking about game management and season/tournament management. Last thing I want to happen is one of my valuable starters gets injured in garbage time. I'd look and feel like an idiot.

I wouldn't need the losing team to conceed by pulling its starters first.

footlocker,
Absolutely!
Like I said, "the better team should be allowed to play their team <U>the way the coach sees as best for the team</U>, without penalty". ;)
mick

Hey Mick
 

Now this is getting into the realm of coaching, but don't you think both coaches have a responsibility to both teams to do what is right for the game as a whole, not just their team. Now this does not mean jeopardizing a win, but embarassing an opponent does no good for either team.

"only the strong can show mercy, the weak must resort to cruelty" I don't know who said it, but it fits.

Re: Hey Mick
 

Tough question, TigerBball.
In a perfect world, yes.

But look at the variables they face:
The player (talent, numbers, desire, ability, willingness)
The parents (input, threats, support, lack of knowledge)
The fans (lack of knowledge, pressure to win)
The school (budgets, philosophy of sport)
The program (support staff at other levels, gym,weight room)
The opponent (history between the schools)
The Coach (intelligence, knowledge, training, previous coaches, up-bringing, amount of sleep, marital status, children, pressure at real job, debts, deaths, births)

On any given day, those factors (all of the above, none of the above, some of the above), and more, may affect any given coach.

I will offer this, though, a coach that will be around <U>next year</U>, probably feels some responsibility to the "game". :cool:
mick

A Coach's Perspective
 

Dealing with situations where a coach is deliberately running up the score is complex. I believe the coaches and other administrators need to deal with the issue, not the officials.

I hate seeing a coach running up the score as much as anyone else. And while I understand the rationale of an official becoming more active with the whistle in order to tone down a coach who won't stop the thumping, I can't help but feel a bit uncomfortable with the unintended consequences of such an action.

I think you begin to open up a large can of worms with this if it becomes obvious. If you as an official show some sympathy (even if appropriate) here, you open youselves to the following questions - what other biases do officials exercise and what sets them off? I guess I'm saying that officials ought to avoid that perception altogether.

As <b>righteous</b> as it may seem, I don't think it's <b>right</b> for an official to do. Let the league administrators deal with idiots like this.

Here in Arizona,we have a program called Pursuing Victory
With Honor.Under that program we,as official,are expected to encourage and promote good sportsmanship and to penalize all cases of poor sportsmanship.

In an ideal world,coaches would not run up the score,but we don't live in an ideal world.I'm not going to start
making things up,but contact by the pressing team will
be a foul,whether it hinders or not,in that situation.I'll
ticky-tack them to death,because I don't view it as a proper way to teach your team about winning with honor.

It also can cause fights,hard fouls in retaliation and coaches screaming at each other during games none of which is appropriate.

Great theory, but how exactly do you implement it and where's the line between good and poor sportsmanship? I think you are asking for trouble, even though the concept is sound and valid.

Again, I admire the <b>intent</b> because I really hate classless coaches and teams running-up the score. But... are you going to call the ticky-tack on the opposing team as well? An outmatched team is probably less talented, prone to more fouls and violations by virtue of their lesser talent - are you gonna call those? If not, it looks like an obvious bias, irrespective of your honorable intentions. <b>Why go there???</b>

Another way to look at this point is to consider advantage/disadvantage. A more skilled team can clearly gain an advantage defensively with what we might call "ticky tack" fouls because the unskilled team is not skilled enough to fight through this type of contact. On the other hand, the more skilled team, on offense, is able to typically fight through the same kind of contact and potentially get past the defender and create something. It ends up looking like you're calling things more biased to the intrained eye, but in effect you are simply using the advantage/disadvantage approach to officiating.

It has always been my feeling that if you say that you are, "here for the kids," that you can't just mean only "your" kids. As a coach, whenever I am in the situation of being clearly better than my opponent, which doesn't happen often, I always try to keep my perspective by thinking to myself, "What if my daughter was on the other team?" How would I want the better team's coach to act.

This came up once last year. I coach 8th grade girls. We had a remarkable team. I will certainly never have another team like that again. We played a team that we had beaten earlier in the season by 25-30 points. We ran our usual full-court press in the first quarter and led 12-0. We pulled the press off and played straight man-to-man in the second quarter and led at half 20-0.

In the 3rd and 4th quarters we played strictly 3-2 or 2-1-2 zone. No pressing or guarding outside the 3. I told our girls to run our regular offenses. With about one minute left in the game, the score was 42-0. I asked my assistant if we should let them score. We decided it would be more disrespectful to give them a basket than it would be to keep playing.

After the game I went up to the opposing coach and I was at a loss for words. He said, "Hey, don't worry about it. You are about 42 points better than we are. I just didn't think it would be 42-0." Neither did I. I worried for days about how that score would look when it was put in the paper and on our league's website. We really did try to pull off the dogs.

Oh, one other thing about that game. I had 15 girls suited up that night, and every single girl played at least a minute in every single quarter. Like I said, I'll never have another team like that again. I was lucky to have them once.

Re: A Coach's Perspective
 

We had this issue come up in a gilr's JV game a few years ago. Final score was 102-7. Winning team played their starters most of the game, pressed the first half, played a half court trap in the second half, broke every chance they had. The next day a couple of the girls from that team came to our school and apologized and told us their coach told them the goal was to win by 100 points. We contacted the other AD, told him the situation, they looked into it, fired the coach and sent us a formal apology. The kicker, this coach was the town's youth pastor. Great example, huh.

Sometimes it can't be prevented. I have a small squad, only 12 players for both the varsity and JV. We also have a 5 quarter limit in our state so a lot of times I'll have 5 guys on the bench during a varsity game that can only play one more quarter because of the earlier JV game. If we get a big lead, I'm pretty much stuck with my starters until the 4th quarter when I can get those other 5 in.

Re: Running up the score
 

The latter is most definitely true :) You really don't know what we are trying to accomplish.

Maybe we are practicing an uptempo game and want to keep it going. If you live off the three, and you are working with shooters that you want to shoot without thinking about it, you take the three every time it is there. Maybe this is the first time your shooter has been hitting in three weeks and you want to keep that groove going.

I took a walk-it-up-the-court team and went uptempo last year. I guarantee you that for six months it was never anything but push the tempo. We would stop pressing at leads of about 25 points, but never less than that. And we still ran every time we got the ball.

You can't control who you play, but changing what your team is doing to a different philosphy is not a great idea, IMO. If you have a delay game you want to practice, so be it. Do it for a quarter if it gets something done that you want done. But you gotta get what you can and need from your games, regardless of who you are playing.

Yes, but...
 

I understand what you are saying, but...

I don't like to think of making adjustments in blow-outs as changing to a different philosophy. Nope, I consider it to be expanding on other elements of our team's game. For example:

After gaining a ton of points off turnovers and transition baskets, wouldn't it be appropriate to work a little on scoring out of half-court sets? After demonstrating excellence on the press, wouldn't it make sense to work on some half-court D? After saying you live and die by the three (and this game you are living well off the three), wouldn't it make sense to work a little on the inside game? Why overlook an opportunity to work on the delay game a bit?

I look at blow-outs as an opportunity to develop other areas of team play, helping us to round out our abilities as a team. You might look at it as an opportunity to continue refining one or more existing aspects you consider your strengths and build on them. Both are valid approaches.

Like I said before, this is a complex issue.

I agree, this is a complex issue. All I can say is that I'm the ref. My job is call the fouls. I don't make 'em up and, I don't change how they are defined. Same call, the whole game. But, man, I hate working these.

PGCougar
I think we generally agree. But I have a shooter who has shot well in practice, poorly when under game pressure. Her first hot game, you can bet we went to her all game long so she had a good memory of what shooting well in a game felt like. When we were just beginning to play uptempo, we were good at primary, decent at half court offense, and awful at secondary break in transition, so we continued to work secondary in games. I thought that was more important that half court against an overmatched team - do what you are not normally successful at doing. But to get secondary, you must push the ball and you will have primary break opportunities. And nobody but me (and my team if they are listening) knows why I am frustrated with how we are executing!

It just depends on what you are trying to ge done - and we all agree that the ref doesn't know that.

Anyone ever heard the phrase - "kill the loser with kindness"? If it were such a lopsided score, nearly every borderline call goes to the losing team; out-of-bounds, traveling, 3 seconds, in the act of shooting (yes or no). You don't have to call fouls on the winning team to "kill the losers w/ kindness". Of course, if a team is ahead by 40pts and they are STILL pressing - I will convince the coach to stop pressing by the number of fouls I call on his team. He'll stop pressing or simply run out of players.

"Killing" the losers with kindness? I don't think you meant to say that, did you? If your calls become too obvious I think you risk "insulting the losers with kindness."

Ultimately, everyone is held accountable for their own behavior. If a coach or a team lacks class, it is a reflection on them, not me or you. I wouldn't expect an official to intervene on my behalf - just do what you always do and do it to the best of your ability.

Good officials know when they can make calls to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the losing team. This is not black and white! You don't make every call in the favor of the losing team until the winning coach "get's the message" or the score becomes respectable. When it's close, you simply give the losing the benefit of doubt.

The rules of basketball may be black and white as printed in the NFHS rulebook, but not all of them are "black and white". Certain aspects have no room for interpretation (3pt vs 2pt shot, ball/foot on the out-of-bounds line, etc.). However, there is quite a bit of room for interpretation of violations and fouls (3sec., traveling, hand-checking, block/charge, etc.). It is the "grey-areas" where you can "kill the loser with kindness" in a 40pt game where the winning team is still pressing.............

I disagree completely with your whole philosophy. Good officials don't inject themselves into the game, and make themselves a factor. Good officials just try to call the game fairly, equally and consistently from beginning to end. You aren't doing any of that when you start to favor one team.

And so now jeffpea, you get to decide when a losing team deserves kindness? I suppose if they are down by a little then we give them a little help. If they are down a lot we increase our "kindness."

What do you call this philosphy for the winning team. "just plain sucks." "Hey coach, your winning so I'm going to help the other team a little but only with the gray area calls. You still respect me right?"

This seems dangerous to me.

Doesn't make sense to me.
 

<B>RE: Benefit of the doubt - </B>
If a team gets a huge, 40 point lead, the game is often already in the 3rd or 4th quarter. How many close plays will even be available? If we have 3 close plays a game, there may only be one left to even consider. I'd erase that concept from my memory bank.
<B>RE: Killing with kindness - </B>
The loser is dead. You cannot kill them. Perhaps you could kill the winner with kindness, by giving them really stoopid calls in their favor to the point of embarrassing them, but forget killing the dead team. The better team and coach already did that deed.
mick

JeffPea
 

JeffPea,

Your comments on this board that you give every boarderline call to the losing team is doing a diservice to the game of basketball and to the fine officials on this board that call the game the same from beginning to end. Eventhough I often throw my two cents in on this board, it is not my job to officiate during a game, it is my job to coach my players to the best of my ability. I once had a game where we were up by 30pts at half time. Now I had no press on, my girls had to make five passes, they could not break and at half time the official tells me the same philosophy that you have. End of the game we win but lost four players to injuries in the second half because of this philosophy. Now Im not trying to be confrontational here, but I don't understand how you JeffPea can have this philosophy of bending the rules for whichever team you feel fit, but still expect us as a coaching fraternity to respect you when you work our games. I feel this attitude of helping out the weaker team is not your job, just like it is not my job to offciate. What I feel your doing is a disservice to the fine officials on this board, and all of the players that play the game. Your cheating!

Re: JeffPea
 

What total BS,so your players got hurt because the official awarded the other team the ball on a close out of bounds play,or did not call a travel or 3 seconds on them,or passed on a hand check! Right!

Hurt is legit.
 

<u>hurt</u>: wrong; harm.

If we favor one team, the other team is hurt; and we did it.
mick

My point was that this is not in the fairness of the game. I dont really want to go back to my situation but those officials on that day took it to the extreme in my opinion I could be wrong, but my kids were getting fouled with no calls, but that is not my point it's not about me or my kids its about JeffPea's post. How can you as an official that is there to uphold the fairness and integrity of the game support JeffPea's comments to basically cheat? I would have thought that must officials would be outraged as this behavior hurts their credibility as officials, something I know they all hold very dear to them.

Bballcoach does bring up a good point. Whenever I am working a blowout game, it becomes about game management. Losing players get frustrated and may foul more. I would say that it is more often the case that the losing team has a higher foul count in the second half of a blow out. These games aren't fun for the coaches, players, fans, or us. I just want to get out of there without any difficult situations and without anybody getting hurt. If I allow a team losing to foul, then they may continue to get rougher.

[Edited by footlocker on Feb 27th, 2004 at 01:05 PM]

A week ago I would never have thought that I would say this
 

But I am definitely on the side of BBallCoachon this one. I cannot tell you how many games my players have gotten hammered by teams that were losing and refs were passing on calls against a team getting blown out. It does happen, it is ugly, and I have had a couple of people get hurt that way. That is the extreme downside of changing the way you call the game.

Re: A week ago I would never have thought that I would say this
 

No one has said they will pass on obvious fouls,what WAS said was:
1.Call more ticky-tack fouls on a team way up that continued to press.
2.If a violation or block/charge was close it was going in favor of the team getting blown out.

From what I've seen over the years,players on the winning team get fouled hard when they keep pressing and attacking,
because the team behind gets frustrated.That situation gets
defused if the team getting blown out gets a break,here or there,from the officials.

It is about game management,it is not cheating,it is not
altering,it is controlling a game that could get ugly.

Re: Hurt is legit.
 

He said,INJURED.Which IS BS.

No one has said they will pass on obvious fouls,what WAS said was:
1.Call more ticky-tack fouls on a team way up that continued to press.
2.If a violation or block/charge was close it was going in favor of the team getting blown out.

It is about game management,it is not cheating,it is not
altering,it is controlling a game that could get ugly.
[/B][/QUOTE]Don't agree with you, either. You're the one that's managing the play, not the players. You're also the one controlling the play, not the players.

Have you ever read this one?

<i>"A player or a team should not be be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule"</i>.

It's not our job to be judge, jury and executioner just because we don't happen to agree with what a team is <b>legally</b> doing. JMO.

Re: Re: Hurt is legit.
 

Okay.
Yet, when we start changing the rules then anything is possible on the floor, including bovins waste.
None of the coaches advocate anything but following the rules and maintaining a clean floor.
And that is my fecund opinion.
mick

blindzebra
You are right, nobody said skip the fouls. However, my experience has been that it is a slippery slope, and giving the benefit of the doubt on violations slides into giving the benefit of the doubt on contact. And then it gets ugly, and people get hurt. The problem is not all refs make this distinction that you are making, despite what is said here.

If you can keep your leniency to missing a couple of violations, I have no problem with that. I am not one who is big on calling every travel when a team is completely overmatched and down by 40 points. Frequently they can't even initiate their offense, so letting a little marginal stuff slide is no big deal to me. If it lets them play a little more and keeps the game flowing a bit better, you be the judge. And if it is a team that could compete but is screwing up, you can usaully see the difference. In those cases, keep calling your game because you could be a momentum swinger by changing.

But the obvious mismatches are obvious - do what you feel comfortable doing as long as you aren't jeopardizing safety.

Not sure who I'm agreeing with and who I'm not agreeing with but here's what I do...

I start every game assuming the teams are of comparable talent and ability. I call contact at some level depending on what I think creates an advantage/disadvantage for one of the players. As the game goes on, I adapt the threshold depending the actual abilities of the players.

When a team is down by 40 in the 4th, I may choose to pass fouls that I would have called earlier. I may also choose to call ones I would have passed on earlier.

For example... Beginning of game, A1 shooting, gets tapped on the wrist/elbow by B1 but not very hard. I call the foul, the basket goes in. Fourth quarter, A up by 40. Same play, no call. It has become apparent that B gained no advantage and A didn't lose the advantage. If the level of contact escalates such that B hits A1 hard, I'll call the foul even if the shot still goes in to maintain control of the game.

Another one...well played game, tied in the 4th quarter, A1 carelessly takes the ball to the corner and gets aggressively trapped by B1 and B2, a little bit of bumping, but A1's is strong and able to play trough it...A1 travels unrelated to a bump...I call the travel...the bump didn't cause it, A1 shouldn't have let themselves get trapped to begin with. Now, in a 40 point game, same play. This time I call the foul since I judge that it was the cause of the travel.

Advantage/Disadvantage is NOT a constant. It varies every game depeding on the teams/players involved. Taking some examples that everyone knows...the contact that Shaq can play through without being disadvantaged is certainly different that what Shawn Bradley can take. It takes a lot more to affect Shaq due to his strength and bulk.

One of the keys to remember here is that some teams may play poorly on a given night, but aren't that bad. I've had plenty of games start off 15-2 only to have the slow starting team lead by half time. I've had teams come back from near 20 pt. deficits in the latter stages to win. I'm very hesitant to claim coaches shouldn't coach their way. I've caught myself a couple of times wondering why a coach was still running his press after leading a the first break by 17-4 (or something like that), only to have one of those teams actually win the game.
Now, when teams are obviously overmatched, I have "missed" some violations that could have been called. Stuff like travels, 3 seconds (may as well have set up a tent), line violations on a throw in (after a hoop, with no pressure), no-pressure illegal dribbles. I will not, however, back off on contact fouls. I've had too many players get frustrated and end up with intentional fouls.

It's harder to focus on these games, but it's just as necessary to get it right.

That is actually my chief concern in this philosophy.I've
seen plenty of over matched teams getting killed and their frustration grows.Over matched players will usually commit
more fouls,that is why I'm more likely to call marginal stuff on the team that is up by a lot.Their play is frustrating them and the last thing that game needs is for it to be 9-1 in fouls against them too.I'd prefer to avoid
it's 7 on 5 out here,so I'll call things tighter on the team with the big lead,especially if they are still pressing.

I'd never stop calling fouls on the team behind,but I'll try not to increase that frustration level that could lead
to hard fouls and players getting hurt.

I always talk to the players,my games will always have plenty of,"Good take,nice pass,that's good hustle," but I'll usually talk more during blow outs,especially with the younger kids.Again if they hear encouragement for playing hard,the right way,the score has less emphasis and things don't get out of hand.

We don't officiate in a vacuum,so every game won't be a close,well played and even match up.We make judgments based on the rules and the level of play.We make judgments based on advantage/disadvantage and flow of the game.We make judgments for game management reasons.

That is a lot of balls we our juggling,their is no perfect
answer to this,but safety should never be ignored.

Pressing, up by 40 points & starters are still in. If they so much as breath on the other team it's a foul. After a few of those, the coach usually calls off the dogs.

I believe it was a great official on this board that said a foul in the first min is a foul in the last min no matter what the score or situtaion. As coaches all we want is the game to be called the same the whole game. I'm concerned that things an official would not normally call would be called or that calls would be purposely made on just one team because of the score. Please explain to me in the interest of fairness and your job to up hold the law of basketball where this fits in. Also thanks to everyone that has posted that has given me new ways to look at this.

I understand where you are coming from, but please let me know where you think the cut-off point is, score and time. At what point is the game out of reach in your mind? At what point is it wrong to keep pressing, to keep starters in? I would seriously like to know what you think, because I know what we have done in specific "out of reach" situations.

Had a game a couple of months ago. Girls varsity. Home team is up by about 25 and pulls its starters and main reserves. Visiting team puts on a press on the B squadders and scores 12 unanswered points. Home puts starters back in and extend the lead back to 20 in no time. This is kind of the reverse of this situation, where the home coach tried to "call off the dogs" if you will and the visitor was still waving the steak.
I abhor coaches who keep pressing when they are obviously going to win the game handily. What can they possibly be learning when the opposition can't even get the ball across half court? I don't care what anyone says here. You know darn well you call the game differently when one team is up by 30 or 40 points. You may not be consiously doing it but we all do it. I remember telling a coach who was up by 40 points in the first half, "I can't tell you how to coach, but I can tell you how I will officiate if you keep pressing this team." This was a Junior High tournament and the score was something like 46-6. In varsity games, I don't think I would say anything to a coach.

Including all others in your rationalization process is a mistake.
mick

I've read with interest the comments from lots of contributors the last few days.........While each person has offered an opinion as to their views, it seems that most who disagree with me have not fully understood my initial comments; so let me clarify a little bit.

Basketball, much like life, is NOT "black and white"! There are far more "gray" areas when it comes to officiating a game regardless of level of play. Officials w/ good judgement and common sense know that you cannot administer the same rules in the same manner from game to game or from half to half (depending on the game situation). To call a 3 sec. violation on a team losing by 25pts. in the last :30 of a game is completely idiotic. To call every foul (whether an advantage gained or not) in a "blow-out" game does not help either team, does not allow the game to flow along at its' normal course/pace, and does not harm the "integrity of the game".

What I am advocating is to shade the calls in favor of the team (which is losing by a significant amount) in situations where the call COULD GO EITHER WAY. I would not "make up" calls that favor the losing team that do not exist. I won't allow either team to beat the hell out of each other for the remaining minutes. I'm not helping the losing team win the game - they couldn't possibly come back based on time/score.

There are two problems with occur with my viewpoint - officials who don't know how to apply this theory (they pass on obvious/"must get" fouls on losing team and severely punish the winning team) and coaches who think that every "foul is a foul" and that every violation MUST be called. These are people who live in the "fantasy world" of basketball and don't know the difference from reality.

This mindset happens all the time from officials at the end of blow-out games at the HS, college, or Pro. level. You have to watch closely to even notice that it's occuring. Usually only the officials on the floor know what is happening. That is why coaches, fans, and players have a hard time believing that "good" officials think or act this way.

I'm an official. I have a real hard time believing that "good" officials think or act this way. Good officials never "shade" calls in favor of anybody.

As Mick has pointed out, there aren't that many calls that "could go either way," meaning close calls where you don't have a good enough view of what happened but you have to call something. In extreme mis-matches, where one team is not really contesting things equally with another, these calls are usually fewer and farther between - it's the fast paced, intensely contested games that result in these close, hard-to-see calls. There are a lot of calls that are close, but you can see what happened if you are in position to make the call. This would include the strip of the ball that then bounces of the knee of the offensive player and OOB, the block/charge, etc.

If you consider these just to be close calls where you can choose to call it in favor of the losing team, many of us disagree with that approach. This is not what "good officials" do in my book. If you are talking about a reobund that is contested and you honestly don't see who touched it ;ast (as oposed to you thinking that the crowd/coaches cant see who touched it last), go ahead and give it to the trailer. But taking close calls and turning them for the losing team is not your place.

Jurassic -- I am a former D1 assistant bball coach and can tell you from first-hand experience that officials make calls in the "gray" areas of the game all the time. "That was a bad offensive move; I won't bail him out" OR "not enough contact now" is what I heard often in games that were all but decided by the score/time.

This year I was hired into a college league and can give you an example from this past Saturday. Although it was a close game there were several players (from both teams)on the floor that had 4 fouls. My two partners made sure that the entire crew knew who had four fouls. We weren't going to stick a player w/ a 5th foul that was "weak". I had a situation where two players from Team B (who both had 4 fouls) fouled A5 in the act of shooting. I blew the whistle and got to choose which player to report.......I choose the player who I deemed to be the "weaker" player (leaving the better player on the floor). Although slightly a different situation than we've been discussing earlier, is that "shading"? Did I hurt the integrity of the game? Both of my partners said they would do the same thing. I know that if I were a player or coach on Team B, that's how I would want an official to handle it (Team A would feel the same way if it happened to them).

In the interest of full disclosure, Team A lost the lead and the game during the last 2 minutes. I certainly didn't affect the missed 3pt. shot and 2 missed rebound attempts by Team A to tie the game.............

If you don't call the first foul you put A at a disadvantage. You affected the game.
I agree you did not miss any shots.
You and your partners have that rationalized to your satifaction. Great defense mechanism... rationalization!

1)What you are talking about in #1 above has absolutely nothing to do with giving calls to one team over another.

2)Yes,I most certainly do think that your "shading" in this situation hurt the integrity of the game. I'm also sure that everybody on Team B would agree with what you did though. Why wouldn't they? You just bailed <b>them</b> out, and left the stronger player on the floor for them. Now you tell me why you won't "bail" a player out in one instance, but you then advocate "bailing" a player out in a different instance? Btw, aren't there two teams on the floor? Do you really think that Team A is gonna be that pleased with you for deciding to leave the better of Team B's players out on the floor? I'll tell you what I really think, Jeff, even though I know that you don't agree with it. Quit playing God out there, and just call what happens. And please don't try to justify your stance by saying that "good" officials do it your way. You can't prove that statement, and never will be able to. What you are giving is your opinion, which is exactly the same as what I am doing also. My opinion is that, if the Team B player did anything at all to help his team out after <b>you</b> decided that he could stay in the game, then you sure as heck did contribute to Team A losing that game.

Mick/Jurassic -- By extension of your logic, you are both going to call a foul or travel in the last 2,3,or 4 seconds of a 40 pt game on the losing team? Please don't be the Police Officer that writes a speeding ticket when you are traveling 1 mph over the Speed Limit!

Judgement is the single greatest asset an official can have. Since all contact is not a foul, you must use Judgement to determine what should and should not be called. Whether you want to admit it or not, the same skills that you use to determine what is and what isn't going to be called a travel or foul during a game are the same skills you should use to determine what you are going to call based on time/score.

jeffpea
Saying you will let the last seconds run off the clock in a blowout rather than call a vioaltion is a lot different than saying you will make all your calls differently during the second half of a blowout. Please don't mis apples and oranges here.

By my logic...? :rolleyes:
That ain't my grave yer diggin'.
mick
<HR>
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

1)Jeff, please don't tell me what <b>my</b> logic is. I've already told you what <b>my</b> logic is. What you're alluding to above has got squat to do with what we've been discussing. You haven't been talking at all about <b>judgement</b> being applied on a call. You've been talking about <b>pre-judging</b> that call instead. The difference is immense. My logic is that I'm gonna try and make every damn call on it's own merits! I'm <b>not</b> gonna pre-judge a call! Ever! If you wanna do so, go right ahead. I just want you to know that I disagree completely with your philosophy.

2) As for the second statement, please tell me how you can talk about "judgement" when it doesn't take any "judgement" at all to make every close call against one team only. There is <b>no</b> judgement involved there at all; just favoritism. There certainly <b>is</b> a skill involved to calling a travel or foul correctly. Please enlighten me as to what skill is involved in <b>you</b> determining what call you're gonna make be before it even happens? No matter what, if it's close, the call you make is gonna go against the team ahead. There's not much skill attached to that philosophy, imo.

Mick/JR,

I completely agree here. It takes courage to call a game consistently without regard to the score, relationships with the coaches, fans, school, or game situation. Good officials will see the game exactly as it occurs and make calls irrespective of these circumstances. As officials our honesty is above reproach and those in our profession with the best reputations are not affected by the pressure or intimidation of fans, coaches, or score.

This is what I strive to do each and every game. I have not always been perfect but I do know that <b>this</b> is the goal. I believe that there will always be jeffpeas out there building a reputation for officials. We deal with “make-up calls,” “uneven foul counts” and yes, “helping the losing team.” Most people with two cents know that not all baseball players take steroids, not all college athletes rape women, and not all officials compromise their profession. (And those without two cents I don’t waste time considering.) It takes bravery to judge every call on its own merit. As for jeffpea, I hope that I never have to partner up that direction.

HawkCoach -- If you re-read my previous posts, you'll easily see that I am not advocating changing ALL of my calls during a game....I'm talking about the close calls; the ones that could go either way - the out-of-bounds, traveling, hand-check, block/charge, etc.

Why does it seem that a fairly large number of people who post on this board take a viewpoint or opinion to the extreme? OF COURSE you can't change EVERY CALL.........

Judgement is EXACTLY what you use in situations that I've described above......

"In my judgement, the ball probably went off A1, but B1 was very close to it and had a hand in there, I'll award it to team A."

"In my judgement, B2 shuffled his feet enough for me to call traveling - even though I might not have called that in a close game."

"In my judgement, A1 had enough possession of the ball as he was falling out of bounds that I'll grant his time-out request."

You can scream "judgement, judgement, judgement" all you want when people blow the whistle, but judgement is what determines IF you blow the whistle. Did you know that, of the officials that were assigned to the NBA Playoffs last season, they graded out as being correct (at least) 94+% of the time they blew the whistle? That's a pretty good percentage; but what about when they didn't blow the whistle? Judgement!

That's the basis of my whole premise. I, and other officials, will "kill the loser with kindness" in lopsided games and can do so in a manner that does not affect the outcome of the game, is not blatantly obvious, and prevents an already poor situation from becoming worse. This can be acheived by blowing the whistle OR passing on calls for both teams................

Yup, the ones that could go "either way" are now gonna always go "one way". To the team that's behind. Heckuva philosophy, Jeff.

JeffPea
 

I'm still concerned that your goal is not to go out and call each and every game like you see it. Your officiating is going to change based on the situation and you in some cases are going to punish the winning team's subs that might be in a game because you feel bad for the losing team. I know I have not always been the biggest supporter of officials on this board, but I must say that from the posts of Mick and others that attempt to call the game as they see it from the jump ball to the last buzzer, those are the officials I would be honored to have working my game. Just my two cents.

Jeff,

Let me put it another way. Your admitting that there are certain game situations that can result in you giving a close/difficult call to a team that is losing. You think this is ok and are going out of your way to defend this.

This is a dangerous slippery slope my friend. If you are willing to force a close call one direction what is going to happen when there is a coach that has been on your back, in a close game, and now you have a close out of bounds or block/charge call. What are you going to do?

You going to try and convince me that you'll call it the way you see it?

You guys are being WAY too hard on Jeff.

Equating his position with some kind of gross lack of integrity or impartiality is just plain stupid. Really. Frankly, I'm surprised that certain "senior members" are so quick to dismiss him.

If I have a massive blowout, 30-40 points, and a team who's still playing its top 7 players, pressing, acting as though the only way to win is to win by 70, I have three goals: keep everyone safe (call the blatant fouls), keep the clock moving (pass on a few more calls), and keep the peace (make sure the team that's up isn't being a bunch of jackasses, make sure the team that's down doesn't go off the rails).

So this means the odd close OOB call goes to our poor team who's down by 40. So maybe the odd borderline shooting foul gets passed on. So maybe the down team gets away with a few travels. So sue me.

Had a game on the weekend where one team was up by 50 - and not because they were running it up, but because the other team was so bad. I passed on a shooting foul, kid kind of complains. Coach says (I quote) "Oh be quiet, we're up by a bunch, we don't need that call. Shut up and play." Bless his heart.

Get off the high horse. This is not what you're making it out to be. Sheesh, get over yourselves.

Hell, the fact that you're all agreeing with BballCoach should be proof enough that you're out to lunch on this one.

How is this so different then...
 

The many times at camps where we are told by the big time
officials(college and NBA)that if you have a close one,dual touch it goes to the team down 20,or the visiting
team.

Other so called fundamentals,that I've heard:

If there is contact on the sideline and the ball goes out it goes to the team that received the contact,but no need to call a foul.

Up fake then contact is always a shooting foul.

Offensive player that turns with the ball and is surprised by the defender,call the travel before a PC foul.

Officials that call a lot of travels and 3 second calls
are not very good officials.

Any official that says that they don't adjust how they call the game from level to level(5th graders vs varsity),
skill level of players in the game,importance of game,history of the game(big rivalry),closeness of game, flow of game,etc...is not being very truthful.

Any in all of those things do factor into our decision making,even if you are calling each play on it's own merit,
no call exists in a vacuum.It is part of the game as a whole and like it or not everything you have gathered during that game will go into that call in the 4th quarter
of that 40 point blow out.

Thanks, zebra - great vision for a "blind" one.

You nailed it.

Where in the hell do <b>you</b> get off telling me what my opinion should be. Also "sheesh, get over yourselves" and "out to lunch"? How about this one, Canuckrefguy? Screw you!

I can read. I know exactly what Jeff is advocating. And it isn't making the odd call in favor of the team that is down. It's making every close call in that team's favor, whether the call is correct or not. Well, I won't deliberately make a wrong call, or favor one team over another. If you want to, then you do exactly what I told Jeff to do. Be my guest.

Get help
 

JR, it's not healthy to bottle up your feelings this way. Tell us what you REALLY think!

Re: How is this so different then...
 

It is part of the officiating career as a whole, and like it or not, everything you have gathered during that career will go into that one call in the 4th quarter of that 40 point blow out.

Agree with you here. I made a similar post very early on in this thread. Game management is paramount in a blowout like this.

Oh really. I don't advocate making pity calls for a particular team just because they are not good. That is not game management. Game management would be applying the same rules to both teams equally. Let things go at both ends but get the worthy fouls and apply the rules equally. That is still good game management.

If you think I am being too harsh on Jeff. Then, “Jeff, I’m sorry. I am not more holy than you. We have different philosophies.” If your big brother thinks I need to add anything to that I’m sure he’ll let me know.

Thats funny, and scary.

Re: Re: How is this so different then...
 

I agree,in fact,I almost used career in my post.That emphasizes my point.We develop philosophies as we get experience.That all goes into EVERY call we make.

Some fair comments, some not-so-fair.

We can agree to disagree, though.