My sis has been a ref for 8 years and she is an excellent official. We have discussed this and she says that she uses a "did the player gain an unfair advantage" standard. I just don't buy that refs use a "pass on calls" standard. It is hard enough winning games without us coaches sitting on the sideline wondering, "Did he pass on that call?" I buy my sister's explanation better.

How is your sister's standard different than what's been offered here. What's been said here is identical to what she said. Besides, perhaps a better option would be not to worry about what calls are made and what calls aren't. Coach your teams based on the calls that are made, not the calls that aren't made.

Just some confusion with the verbiage, I think. Basically, they're both saying the same thing. You pass on making a call, usually involving player contact, if you feel that there was no advantage gained or lost by either opponent involved. It, by no means, should be interpreted that an official is just haphazardly picking and choosing what they feel like calling. They're applying their best judgement to each individual situation. Whether that particular judgement call may be actually correct or not is a whole different story.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Mar 28th, 2004 at 04:37 PM]

"Coach, I passed on the call because I didn't think he gained an unfair advantage."

Don't get caught up in the verbiage. It's all the same thing.

First of all, Snaqwells...
 

we coach our players to play and not to worry about the officials calls. That's why we've played in 12 State championship finals and won 8 (most in our Group). It's easier that way. You start teaching your players to worry about what officials call and they are already setting up their excuse if they lose. I was simply picking my sister's brain as a referee, that's all.

I knew that, I was only responding to where you said, It is hard enough winning games without us coaches sitting on the sideline wondering, "Did he pass on that call?"

I was only saying that you really don't need to wonder why a call wasn't made. Chances are they didn't think there was an advantage gained. You may disagree, but you won't be able to change it.

If you think we miss a call, it's likely because we thought there was no advantage, or it was close (as in not obvious) and we decided not to make a borderline call. Or, we saw it more clearly and saw it differently. Of course, we may have just flat out kicked the call. That does happen.

[Edited by Snaqwells on Mar 28th, 2004 at 05:39 PM]

I have an intense dislike for the phrases: "pass on the call" or "it was a no call."

An official has to make hundreds of yes/no decisions every game. Did an infraction of the rules occur? Yes or no. If the answer is yes, the official stops the came and imposes the appropriate penality. If the answer is no, the official does nothing.

There IS an advantage rule in soccer
 

but there is none in basketball.

If you're using that styandard, you're violating the rules.

AND you are substituting your own judgement for the rules which is not your right to do.

No argument there, you're throwing away the rules book and substituting your personal view of whether there was an advantage gained from a violation of the rules that you admittedly observed and violated the rule by not calling it.

I agree Mr. DeNucci, there is no such
 

thing as a "good no call".

That is seeing a violation and allowing the offending team to gain by a violation the official didn't call.

That truely invites a disaster in our game.

Re: There IS an advantage rule in soccer
 

Really?

From the NFHS Basketball Rules Book

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not 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.

Re: I agree Mr. DeNucci, there is no such
 

Are you ever going to back up your statement with any quotes that are in the rulebook? You run your mouth and seem to not know the very basic rules. Rule 4 covers everything that is stated in the rulebook and you do not even know what Rule 4 says about contact. How many tests have you taken in your lifetime about rules at any level?

Peace

Re: Re: I agree Mr. DeNucci, there is no such
 

I'm just going to sit here and enjoy a good chuckle.

Anyone want to join in? :D

Re: There IS an advantage rule in soccer
 

Read a rule book then come back.

A foul is defined as personal contact that hinders an opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements. What that means is contact that does not hinder, or DISADVANTAGE a player is incidental.

Re: I agree Mr. DeNucci, there is no such
 

So you think that every infraction should be whistled, regardless of whether either team was put at an advantage or a disadvantage? If you can't judge advantage/disadvantage, how do you apply the rules and judge what fouls to call and what not to call, particularly in regards to rule 4.27 which deals with incidental contact? Also, if you call every bit of contact, there will be times when you punish the offensive team. For instance, player at the low blocks pump-fakes, drawing the defender into the air, defender comes down and bumps the player with the ball, who emerges unscathed with an open look at a lay-up. Do you call the foul on the floor or do you judge that the contact didn't put the player at a disadvantage and allow him the open look at the shot, saving the defense from a marginal foul call while at the same time allowing the offensive player an easy shot for 2 points?

Rule 4.27 allows officials to exercize judgement an helps to determine if what they see is indeed an infraction of the rules. A "good no call" might not be the greatest description, but rather saying that the official exercized good judgement is appropriate.

Re: Re: Re: I agree Mr. DeNucci, there is no such
 

Far be it from me, Mark. But thank you for not forcing me to point out the quote. :)

Judge Roy has truly had an impact on our discussions - and pointed out that, no matter how much we may disagree on some minor points, I think most of us agree on the big stuff. We tend to overstate some points at times, but the regulars here know the way a game should be called, and know the rule references to support it.

That said, I am chuckling too!

Chuck and Mark. (the debate continues).
 

:rolleyes:

I realize that you guys have a hard time with context at times. So this might be a hard concept to understand.

Tests are a requirement for just about every High School Official in this country. And if anyone has officiated on a serious level, they had to pass some kind of basic test. And for most of us that is the NF Part 1 Exam.

I for the first time in my career went to see the Class AA Boy's State Finals in Peoria, Illinois a couple of weekends ago. The officials that worked the games (12 officials), I would take a wild guess that their opportunity was not because they had higher test scores from everyone in the state that desired to work that level or officiated the playoffs this year. As a matter of fact, I know that not to be the case. They had to have experience, past officiating experinence, put on Top 15 lists and have the people that make those decisions have faith in them to pick them because they feel they are capable to work those games.

But then again, the debate goes on. ;)

Peace

Re: Chuck and Mark. (the debate continues).
 

Nobody's arguing anything. I see no debate. Merely irony. :)

Re: Re: Re: I agree Mr. DeNucci, there is no such
 

No...I think I will just sit and chucle with you and Chuckles...errr, I mean Chuckie....oops, Chuck...

Re: Re: Chuck and Mark. (the debate continues).
 

How is it ironic? When this had nothing to do with the original discussion.

Peace

I'll leave that question to you, a dictionary, and any first year English major. :D

It would be ironic if I said that no official should ever have to take an exam, EVER!!!. But that is not what I said then and not what I am saying now. And my current comments have nothing to do with that former discussion. Considering that the old discussion was about "what would I perfer in a partner." It was not, "should officials be required to take a test in their lifetime."

But as usual Chuck, that is why the baseball discussions getting thrown out offend you. You like to split hairs on one end, but cannot understand when it is done against you.

Oh Well.

Have a good day my man!!

Peace

:eek:
(As spoken by Phoebe on Friends):

Ring! Ring!

"Hello?"

"Uh, hi. Is this the kettle? Hi, I'm the pot. Yeah, you're black."

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif :D

oops, almost forgot
 

True, but check your dictionary again. I think you'll see that your reply still fits as ironic. (I checked mine already, to be sure I was right ;) )

Re: oops, almost forgot
 

I do not need a dictionary to know what irony is. But just like a test, your impression does not have to be correct. ;)

Peace