[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

Quote:

I sat through a very insightful talk by Ed Rush last summer and he addressed the perception that the Star treatment exists. His points were too lengthy (and I could not state his thoughts as well as he did) to post here, but after hearing his side of the story, no one could talk me into subscribing to the Star Treatment. If I misunderstood your post, my apologies in advance.

Way to add nothing to the discussion! You heard a talk, that you won't discuss, therefore you disagree. And you do so without stating one cogent point as to why someone should agree with you.

The fact is, it sounds like a very interesting talk you had the benefit of hearing. I would like to read some of these points, so if you're willing, take a stab at it and put the thoughts in the thread.

Otherwise, why bring it up?

Re: Re: Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by footlocker

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra Quote: Player moving to A, has contact at B, successfully reaches C means that the contact at point B did not hinder the offensive player, thus no foul. If a player is moving to A and ends up at C instead then the contact must have hindered him from gettng to point A.

A,B,C is a progression if you are moving on that line and you stay on that line, you were not hindered. If you are moving on that line and there is contact at point B and you end up on F that is a foul, A,B,F is a foul.

Re: Star Treatment
 

It is you are 6'3", have 20" biceps, and a 30" waist.

D-wil,
I must say your humble demeanor is refreshing in this thread, especially in light of all the fans that have graced our presence lately. Thank you.

Adam

Re: Re: Re: NBA vs. NCAA officials
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by footlocker

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra Quote: Player moving to A, has contact at B, successfully reaches C means that the contact at point B did not hinder the offensive player, thus no foul. If a player is moving to A and ends up at C instead then the contact must have hindered him from gettng to point A.

I think he ment "FROM A"

Way to make a request in an argumentative fashion!
 

[/B][/QUOTE]

Way to add nothing to the discussion! You heard a talk, that you won't discuss, therefore you disagree. And you do so without stating one cogent point as to why someone should agree with you.

The fact is, it sounds like a very interesting talk you had the benefit of hearing. I would like to read some of these points, so if you're willing, take a stab at it and put the thoughts in the thread.

Otherwise, why bring it up? [/B][/QUOTE]


I certaninly hope your demeanor with coaches and or players isn't this combative right from the get go. :rolleyes:

As I stated, I won't be able to explain as well as Mr. Rush but this evening, if I have time, I will post the gist of what he said. I can't make lengthy posts throughout the day most of the time, well because I have to work!

The reason, I brought it up was to state that based on what I have heard, I don't buy into the Star philosophy as many people buy into carte blanch and stated my basis for not buying into it as Mr. Rush's speech. Someone implied that ref's don't call fouls on certain players even if they beleive they have indeed fouled.

That is why I posted. Now whether or not that is good enough for you, I don't really care.


[Edited by BBall_Junkie on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 04:43 PM]

I guess I disagree with both parts of this statement. I don't think pro officials are looking for things NOT to call. My experience is that the pro philosophy is "look for things TO call". They don't want ticky-tack calls, but they don't want to overlook rules infractions b/c of the game situation.

In HS and lower NCAA games, if the game is a blow-out, many officials say to each other, "Ok, Team B (losing team) gets the benefit of the doubt. We'll get everything on Team A, but we'll try to let stuff on Team B slide if we can." The thinking is that since the game is essentially over, there's no reason even to seem like we're "piling on" to Team B.

The pro official will never take that mindset. You look for things TO call; not for things to let go.

As far as "who to not call it on", the pro philosophy is to be aware of who has how many fouls. They will not avoid calling a foul when a foul needs to be called. But if they have a choice of giving the foul to the guy with 3 fouls or the guy with 1 foul, they will give it to the guy with 1 foul. They are already aware of which guy has more fouls, so it looks pretty smooth. They're not going to shy away from the foul if the guy commits it all by himself; but if somebody else is around, they will likely give it to the other guy.

Does that make sense? The philosophy is not "don't call fouls on the stars". The philosophy is "if possible, distribute the fouls so that the stars can stay in the game."

Just my opinion from very brief experience.

You're not saying this thinking is limited to the pro ranks, are ya?

Absolutely not, but (I think) every pro official thinks this way, while a much smaller percentage of HS officials think this way (or have the awareness to know which player has fewer fouls).

Did you ever think that maybe there might be HS officials that do have the "awareness", but also think that this pro philosophy should NOT be applied at the HS level? Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to get the impression that you may be looking down your nose at officials that might not agree with you that pro philosophies should apply at the HS level.

Of course! I never said that it should be used at the HS level (although I personally do use it in my HS games). I merely pointed out that this particular pro-oriented philosophy is not used as much in HS games. Can't really argue with that, can you? That's for one of two reasons: either the HS official isn't aware of the philosophy (or the game situation), or the HS official intentionally doesn't apply pro philosophies to his/her HS games. Neither reason necessarliy makes the HS official a bad official.

C'mon! I hope you know me better than that, JR. My two games do not qualify me to look down my nose at anybody. If I was going to be snooty, you think I'd stick around after all the times you post that squirrel?!?!?!

Re: Way to make a request in an argumentative fashion!
 

I was with you up until I read this... Now I know that you are grasping at straws!!!

Isn't this your Friday off? ;)

Did you ever think that maybe there might be HS officials that do have the "awareness", but also think that this pro philosophy should NOT be applied at the HS level? [/quote][/b]
Of course! I never said that it should be used at the HS level (although I personally do use it in my HS games).

[/B][/QUOTE]Could you please explain that pro philosophy a little bit further, Chuck? As in, exactly how you do assign that foul? You said that if somebody else was around, they might give it to that guy. Do they, and you, take into account whether the contact from one player may be stronger than that of the other, and usually is(at least imo). Or that the contact by both of those defensive players rarely occurs exactly simultaneously? Just wanna make sure that I understand completely the pro philosophy that you are detailing.

Chuck is talking about taking one for the team, if two defenders are there, the one with fewer fouls gets the foul. Who hit A1 harder or first does not enter the picture.

So one defender can smack the hell out a shooter, and do that first, but another defender can then barely make contact, and that slight contact can occur AFTER the first defender smacked the hell out of the shooter, but the pro philosophy is to then call the 2nd defender for the foul if the 2nd defender has fewer fouls. Right? And that's true even if the second defender is Shaq, and the first defender is just some scrubeenie off of the bench, because you're supposed to "distribute" the fouls to the player who has the fewest. And this exact same philosophy is used in HS ball if the official happens to possess the "awareness" to be able to use it. Correct?

I take it that you and Chuck both agree with this philosophy, and it's usage. Or am I wrong?