I think there is no dout in most people’s minds that the foul even if it did occur should not have been called. As I was tought when I went to classes to get certified thats what we get the big money for.

Good to have the replies, Mick and refs. I got some new information.

My purpose here was to learn about the how the rules apply to this kind of situation. I am not complaining about the officiating.

As for equipment problems, I saw that discussed somewhere else saying that it has not been right long-term at that arena. It just raised the question to me of what should be done when there are those kinds of problems, so Mick was helpful on that. I have no idea or opinion if they should have used a substitute timer in this game.

Also it looks like I need to be more precise with my terminology. By talking about consistency in 'calling the game' I should have said 'officiating', assuming that covers the decision to go to the monitors for a time determination.

So, you're saying, if the foul did occur, it shouldn't have been called. Is that correct?

There are plenty of people who that the proper call was made. Don't lump us all under YOUR opinion because you don't agree with it.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 8th, 2004 at 08:25 PM]

Just FYI, equipment problems doesn't mean that the clock has physically broken. It refers in this case to the physical limitations of a human operator hearing a whistle, recognizing a whistle, flipping a switch, and then the clock responding to that switch - all in 1/5th of a second. Even the best of us timers can use the help in that situation.

Anyone knows the rules but only the good ones know how to apply them. First unless you have an obvious foul which we did not in this case so you had to 2 players playing the ball and not all contact is a foul. You have to use your experence as an official to determine if a foul has occured.
If you want to decide a game of this magnitude on a very suspect call be my guest. You shoul only have the official who made the call look at the film because they know when they saw what they thought was a foul.

Who are you, Bill Walton? Come on. Are you one of those people who thinks when the ball is rolling on the ground and one guy dives for it and takes out another guys legs, that it should not be a foul. The ball was loose. He was going for the ball. There are 2 players playing the ball, in this sistuation.


The official thought it was a foul??? How about that. I thought he called a foul because he thought it was not a foul. Thank you so much for clearing that up.

My, aren't we a bit presumptuous?

I wish one person would read the response and not read into it for what they want it to mean.........

aucella, I think you can work through w/a good psychiatrist. But don't beat yourself up about it. You can't always have the same opinion as everyone else. I am sure that your mom still appreciates you..........

this is my last post because this forum is so counter productive........ you people will not admit to the human side of refing and in my final statement I'm getting rid of my whistle since it serves no purpose??????

[Edited by aucella on Apr 6th, 2004 at 08:05 PM]

Aucella,
We admit to the human side, we take exception to your presumption that "most people" see it the same way you do. As for your whistle, don't worry, I'm sure the sporting goods store will take back a brand new whistle without much problem. You might even get your whole $2 back.

Put this issue to bed
 

Against my better judgement I will make on last statement My whistle is not even close to being new so I doubt I would get my money back but telling officials that the blowing of the whistle has nothing to do with when the foul occurs is just bad teaching. It will not make better officials but it will encourage lazy ones.

Re: Put this issue to bed
 

Okay, serious question now. How does it make lazy ones? I'm not seeing the logic here.
Kinda the definition of "non sequiter" to me.

Adam

Re: Put this issue to bed
 

Sorry if you disagree withg the rulebook, but the statement is true.

When a foul occurs near the expriation of a period, the issue is when the foul occurred, not when the whistle sounds.

Case in point:

Last year, I'm working a boys 3A state quarterfinal game, end of the 1st half. I'm lead, shot goes up and misses, A1 creams B1 from behind and tips the miss in just before the horn sounded. I came out strong, waved the basket off and called the foul. The foul was on the tip, before the horn, even though my whistle came simultaneously or just after the horn. That's the correct call. And I received many compliments on having the willingness to make the call.

See it and call it. When the whistle sounds is of NO consequence. It has nothing to do with a lazy whistle, nor is it an encouragement to be lazy, or even teaching. To suggest such is ludicrous. It's simply the rule. And if you're teaching otherwise, you're DEAD wrong.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Apr 7th, 2004 at 12:06 AM]