NBA vs. NCAA officials

[Adam]

Originally posted by blindzebra


I think the "Taking one for the team" philosophy should be
used in HS, but not the same way it is applied in the NBA, where amount of contact and star versus role player enter the mix.

I will call the foul on the player with fewer fouls when the contact occurs at ABOUT the same time and the amount of contact is ABOUT the same.

I'm not convinced the philosophy should be used in HS at all. Some refs have the awareness, but choose not to call a game this way.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I never changed a description of a NBA philosophy, I talked about taking one for the team as it applies to the NBA and how I call it. You were looking for something to rag on me about and ignored what I clearly posted.

It is obvious that you do go out of your way to disagree with several posters on this forum and you always ignore any relevent arguements these posters bring up.

[/B]

Actually, it's very rare for Chuck and myself to disagree. And I still don't know yet whether we disagree or not in this thread. I'm still trying to pin down what the "NBA philosophy" actually is. So far, what I've got- from your words and Chuck's- is that if 2 defenders foul an opponent, you automatically give the foul to the defender who has fewer fouls. And the degree of contact, or whether one opponent maybe made contact before the other opponent is not relevant at all. Unless one of the defenders is one of the team's stars. In that case, the other player- not the star- will get the foul. And officials in HS ball should have the same "awareness" so that they can use the same philosophy there.

That's what I got so far. Heckuva system. [/B][/QUOTE]

See my post above. Same philosophy, different applications.

[Edited by blindzebra on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 05:55 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

I'm not convinced the philosophy should be used in HS at all. Some refs have the awareness, but choose not to call a game this way.

Why, if you apply it consistently?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
So far, what I've got- from your words and Chuck's- is that if 2 defenders foul an opponent, you automatically give the foul to the defender who has fewer fouls.

I never said automatically. I said "if possible"! If the star player clobbers the shooter then it's not possible to give it somebody else, b/c everybody in the gym knows he hammered him. That's part of calling the obvious.

And the degree of contact, or whether one opponent maybe made contact before the other opponent is not relevant at all.

Again, I never said it was not relevant. It goes into the mix of "if possible".

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

I think the "Taking one for the team" philosophy should be
used in HS, but not the same way it is applied in the NBA, where amount of contact and star versus role player enter the mix.

I will call the foul on the player with fewer fouls when the contact occurs at ABOUT the same time and the amount of contact is ABOUT the same.

[/B]

I think that I understand now. In HS, you should always give the foul to the player with fewer fouls. It doesn't matter that that player might be the star(and the only good player on that team), and the other player might be Sammy Scrub who's just on for his usual 2 minutes per game. The star is gonna get the foul because he's got fewer fouls.

We do agree that this is really different than the "pro philosophy", don't we? Or do we?

[blindzebra]

Yes, it is different, but I've been saying that all along. LOL

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Again, I never said it was not relevant. It goes into the mix of "if possible". [/B]

Blindzebra's quote was "Chuck is talking about taking one for the team. If two defenders are there, the one with the fewer fouls gets the foul. Who hit A harder or first does NOT enter the picture". You said that you agreed with him, Chuck.

Do you or don't you?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Apr 23rd, 2004 at 07:08 PM]

[Eric Huechteman]

Originally posted by d-wil
w_sohl...

...the "star treatment" exists in every sport...

I have actually had a veteran varsity ref tell me I should have called a foul on a non-"star" player because he wasn't as important to the game, even though the non-star didn't commit the foul. (The star player picked up his fourth foul early in the fourth quarter.) That pisses me off.

[Eric Huechteman]

I think it's a joke to give fouls to someone other than the guy who fouled. Better players should also be better at avoiding the foul. In a game, I was called for 2 real fouls, one phantom foul, and one foul that was committed by someone else--all in the first half. I played the entire second half WITHOUT committing another foul. I also ended the game with 14 rebounds and 6 blocked shots, so it wasn't just an attempt to stay away--I just played smarter.

[JRutledge]

JR,

I am with you on this one. I do not agree with that at all. Do not get me wrong, if two players foul a shooter, I might pick the player with less fouls if I realize it. But I am not going to blanantly give a foul to the second guy that made slight contact if the first guy was not smart enough to not foul. I do believe in the philosophy that you should make the 4th and 5th fouls on a star or significant player "be there," but that does not mean the other fouls should not be there as well. I just know that the last couple of fouls are what is going to be remembered. I just use that as a consentration tool more than anything. But I do not agree with purposely distributing the fouls. If a player does not want a foul called, do not foul or cause contact that might make an official call you for something.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Blindzebra's quote was "Chuck is talking about taking one for the team. If two defenders are there, the one with the fewer fouls gets the foul. Who hit A harder or first does NOT enter the picture".

And I said he's exactly right. Ok, I see your point. I took him to be speaking generally, about the normal course of play, like the usual situation where a shooter gets hit by two defenders at roughly the same time with about the same amount of contact. You took him literally to mean that the level of contact never matters. And that is what he said, so it's understandable. I stand by everything I've written in this thread except for that word "exactly".

But as I've tried to say as I've elaborated, the level of contact will matter if it's obvious that one of the defenders really hammered the guy. You have to call the obvious, at any level. If you get a foul that's excessively hard, that's the foul you call -- at any level.

Put another way: If possible, distribute the fouls so that the stars stay in the game.

So I'll state again my interpretation of the pro philosophy: if two players contact the shooter (happens all the time), and if the difference in contact is not that great (and usually, it's not), and if the official is aware of the fouls on each of the players, then the guy with fewer fouls will probably get the foul.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
JR,

I am with you on this one. I do not agree with that at all. Do not get me wrong, if two players foul a shooter, I might pick the player with less fouls if I realize it.

Then you do agree with me, b/c that's all I'm saying. If two players foul a shooter, I might pick the player with fewer fouls if I realize it. That's all I'm saying. We agree on that point.

[Adam]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Why, if you apply it consistently?

Simple. I don't think hs ball should be about the stars. For those players who are going to move on to higher levels, it doesn't do them much good to give them "star" treatment. It also doesn't do them any good to help them get more than 5 fouls in a game, regardless of whether they are stars or not. I think for me it's an instructional thing.
I agree with Rut, that we should make sure the last couple are obvious, but if the guy with four fouls comes in and hacks the offensive player, followed by a teammate doing the same thing; I'll be calling the first foul, because that's the rule.

Unless, of course, my assignor wants it done differently.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Eric Huechteman
I think it's a joke to give fouls to someone other than the guy who fouled.

Eric, it's a joke if that's what you think blindzebra and I are saying.

In a game, I was called for 2 real fouls, one phantom foul, and one foul that was committed by someone else

When HS kids find the forum and make posts like this, we tell them to get over it and move on with their lives. . .

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Then you do agree with me, b/c that's all I'm saying. If two players foul a shooter, I might pick the player with fewer fouls if I realize it. That's all I'm saying. We agree on that point.

Not really. Because I do this only in very rare situations. I do not do this to "distribute" fouls or not to call fouls all together. If a star clearly fouls another player, he is getting called for it regardless.

I worked with a very experienced official this past year and he tried to get me to call a foul on a "secondary" player that did not make a foul, when a starter clearly took the arm off the ball handler. He thinks that I should have not called a foul because this player was about to foul out. I did not care what his foul situation was, because if you had the look I had, it was no doubt this starter just grabbed the ball handler. It would have looked bad if I decided not to call a foul on this kid just becasue he had 4 fouls. Now if there was any doubt who fouled first, that is one thing all together. But if it is clear, I really do not care what their foul situation is. And from what I read that is not exactly what you are saying. But I did come in this conversation late and might have missed your explaination. I was responding to a comment JR said on page 2. I did not realize that that was not the last page of this discussion when I posted.

Peace