Intentional Foul at End of Game

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by drinkeii

You honestly feel this way? Then I guess we should just throw out the rule book. I mean, otherwise, how can it be fair to go from one official to the next, having one choose which rules they like, and which ones they don't, and enforcing them however they want? Associations try to control this somewhat by dictating how they want things enforced - but I do find it funny that most of what I say fits exactly with our rules interpreter from our chapter, but many officials still ignore some of the things he says. And he is elected every couple of years to the position, and is very well liked.

It's part of the game, almost every foul when a team is behind in the closing moments is intentional. Until the rule is changed to say every foul is two shots and the ball, officials will have to use judgement.

It seems that there is a common theme to all your posts, a very anti-official one IMO, that if it is not black and white from the rule book, the officials are choosing what rules they like.

My goodness, every call requires judgment, and you seem to ignore that fact.

Officiating is more of an art than a science, you don't seem to get that.

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by blindzebra

It's part of the game, almost every foul when a team is behind in the closing moments is intentional. Until the rule is changed to say every foul is two shots and the ball, officials will have to use judgement.

It seems that there is a common theme to all your posts, a very anti-official one IMO, that if it is not black and white from the rule book, the officials are choosing what rules they like.

My goodness, every call requires judgment, and you seem to ignore that fact.

Officiating is more of an art than a science, you don't seem to get that.

Well, some calls require judgement. Others are stated in black and white, and the fact that some officials (and I am an official... i happen to subscribe to this philosophy) pick and choose which rules to enforce and which to ignore to me is not correct. If every call required judgement, when the ball went out of bounds, some officials might just say "well, close enough to saving it, i'll let it go". The rules say what an intentional foul is. When officials choose to ignore the rules, in favor of what people WANT them to call (and by people, i mean coaches who've never read the rules, bystanders who've never read the rules, etc...), they're not doing their job. If you ask any interpreter, they will back the rulebook. Why is it so tough for the officials under that interpreter to follow their directions and just make the calls as the people who wrote the rules intended?

You state that almost every foul at the end of the game is intentional. The rules do state it is 2 shots and possession for an intentional foul. Where is the problem with this?

I am not being anti-official. I am an official. I am being anti-"I am an official, but i'm going to do whatever I want regardless of the rules". How do you play a game without rules? Even streetball has a number of unwritten rules that you can walk on to almost any street court in the country and have a basic understanding of what they're playing by. Organized basketball has organized rules and cases, and officials who are supposed to follow them - not use the idea of judgement to allow them to ignore the rules in favor of making what they consider to be a better game.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by drinkeii

Well, some calls require judgement. Others are stated in black and white, and the fact that some officials (and I am an official... i happen to subscribe to this philosophy) pick and choose which rules to enforce and which to ignore to me is not correct. If every call required judgement, when the ball went out of bounds, some officials might just say "well, close enough to saving it, i'll let it go". The rules say what an intentional foul is. When officials choose to ignore the rules, in favor of what people WANT them to call (and by people, i mean coaches who've never read the rules, bystanders who've never read the rules, etc...), they're not doing their job. If you ask any interpreter, they will back the rulebook. Why is it so tough for the officials under that interpreter to follow their directions and just make the calls as the people who wrote the rules intended?

You state that almost every foul at the end of the game is intentional. The rules do state it is 2 shots and possession for an intentional foul. Where is the problem with this?

I am not being anti-official. I am an official. I am being anti-"I am an official, but i'm going to do whatever I want regardless of the rules". How do you play a game without rules? Even streetball has a number of unwritten rules that you can walk on to almost any street court in the country and have a basic understanding of what they're playing by. Organized basketball has organized rules and cases, and officials who are supposed to follow them - not use the idea of judgement to allow them to ignore the rules in favor of making what they consider to be a better game.

Well since it appears that the majority of officials do in fact use their own judgment in this situation and they continue to work games, perhaps you need to stick with the coaching.

Officials are calling a foul, the judgment comes in deciding common or intentional.

Officials judge in bounds or OOBs using the rules as a guide. Foul or incidental contact using the rules as a guide.

Nothing in the book is automatically applied, everything reguires an official's judgment and interpretation of the rule. What you consider black and white is very gray.

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Well since it appears that the majority of officials do in fact use their own judgment in this situation and they continue to work games, perhaps you need to stick with the coaching.

Officials are calling a foul, the judgment comes in deciding common or intentional.

Officials judge in bounds or OOBs using the rules as a guide. Foul or incidental contact using the rules as a guide.

Nothing in the book is automatically applied, everything reguires an official's judgment and interpretation of the rule. What you consider black and white is very gray.

That attitude would explain the number of situations where a rule clearly applies, but the official chooses (read "uses their judgement") not to apply it. I don't believe the people who write the rules and revise them year in and year out write them with the intention of thousands of officials interpreting and applying them thousands of different ways. Some rules leave room for interpretation. Others ARE very black and white. And I feel I am a better official, and can justify my calls if needs be, if I have the backing of the rules. When someone does something which is clearly a violation of the rules, and it is not called correctly, I don't feel that the official has done their job - whether it be me (if I find out later I was wrong), my partner, or an official I have working a game that I am coaching. I leave the judgement calls to the officials. But when the rules say "This is how this is supposed to be handled", and the official chooses (again, read "uses their judgement") completely against the rules to ignore it or not enforce it, they are not doing their job.

Simple example - House rule for league my kids play in: All players must have a jersey with a number. Any players without numbered jerseys will receive a technical foul if they play once the game has started. The coach and players have the option before the game to correct this before the game starts. - Some officials absolutely refuse to give the technicals, even though that is the direction from the person in charge of the league. I understand unusual circumstances, such as the jerseys being ordered but not coming in yet. But late in the season, officials will still refuse to enforce a black and white rule.

You are correct - officials are still working games even though they choose to modify, reinterpret, and ignore some rules. TV Announcers are still working, calling games and stating complete falsehoods related to the game, but they're still working. I would hope that officials, in all sports, would strive to be the best they can be, and to use this judegement, in line with the rules, to have the best game based on the intentions of the rulemakers that they can. I'm sure Dr. Naismith could have never forseen how complicated his game could become, but his original rules were very simple, and I'm sure he enforced them quite well, as written. Why do some officials find it so hard to do the same?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by drinkeii

That attitude would explain the number of situations where a rule clearly applies, but the official chooses (read "uses their judgement") not to apply it. I don't believe the people who write the rules and revise them year in and year out write them with the intention of thousands of officials interpreting and applying them thousands of different ways. Some rules leave room for interpretation. Others ARE very black and white. And I feel I am a better official, and can justify my calls if needs be, if I have the backing of the rules. When someone does something which is clearly a violation of the rules, and it is not called correctly, I don't feel that the official has done their job - whether it be me (if I find out later I was wrong), my partner, or an official I have working a game that I am coaching. I leave the judgement calls to the officials. But when the rules say "This is how this is supposed to be handled", and the official chooses (again, read "uses their judgement") completely against the rules to ignore it or not enforce it, they are not doing their job.

Simple example - House rule for league my kids play in: All players must have a jersey with a number. Any players without numbered jerseys will receive a technical foul if they play once the game has started. The coach and players have the option before the game to correct this before the game starts. - Some officials absolutely refuse to give the technicals, even though that is the direction from the person in charge of the league. I understand unusual circumstances, such as the jerseys being ordered but not coming in yet. But late in the season, officials will still refuse to enforce a black and white rule.

You are correct - officials are still working games even though they choose to modify, reinterpret, and ignore some rules. TV Announcers are still working, calling games and stating complete falsehoods related to the game, but they're still working. I would hope that officials, in all sports, would strive to be the best they can be, and to use this judegement, in line with the rules, to have the best game based on the intentions of the rulemakers that they can. I'm sure Dr. Naismith could have never forseen how complicated his game could become, but his original rules were very simple, and I'm sure he enforced them quite well, as written. Why do some officials find it so hard to do the same?

Mountains out of mole hills.

This utter disreguard for the rules is so blatant that the NFHS has ONE case play dealing with end of game fouls and it covers fouling a player without the ball.

Why does this one "official" have such a self-righteous attitude?

I'm through banging my head against the brick wall.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

I'm through banging my head against the brick wall. [/B][/QUOTE]What took so long, BZ? LOL!

You were never gonna get through to him. Waste of time.