It's easy to explain -- even coaches get it although they don't always like it. It's simple advantage/disadvantage. "Coach, when your team is so much better than the other team, any contact at all gives you a tremendous advantage. So if it's illegal contact, I've got to call it. On the other hand, when the other team contacts you, they get no advantage at all. It's gotta be a real hack or slam before I call it." That's the way it is in a mis-match. [/B][/QUOTE]Jmo, but I completely disagree with that whole concept, and I always have. It's not our job to impose our own personal values or beliefs into a ballgame. It's also not part of our job to become judge and jury to pass our own personal judgement on a team, and then become the executioner too. It is our job to call the game fairly and evenly, and keep it under control. What you're doing can, in no way imo, be called officiating a game fairly and evenly. Let the people who run a league decide what they think is fair or not. That's why running clocks, for example, get introduced into the rules. It's their job to make the rules; it's our job to call the rules, even the ones we don't like. If you want to loosen up or tighten up on the contact--fine- but loosen up or tighten up at both ends, not just against one team. Again, jmo.

Jmo, but I completely disagree with that whole concept, and I always have. It's not our job to impose our own personal values or beliefs into a ballgame. It's also not part of our job to become judge and jury to pass our own personal judgement on a team, and then become the executioner too. It is our job to call the game fairly and evenly, and keep it under control. What you're doing can, in no way imo, be called officiating a game fairly and evenly. Let the people who run a league decide what they think is fair or not. That's why running clocks, for example, get introduced into the rules. It's their job to make the rules; it's our job to call the rules, even the ones we don't like. If you want to loosen up or tighten up on the contact--fine- but loosen up or tighten up at both ends, not just against one team. Again, jmo. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with you to a certain point, but I do think the a/d thing can be reasonably carried out to this extreme. It's very true that we are supposed to keep a game fair, but that doesn't include robotically calling this much contact a foul and that much contact not a foul. It includes judgment as to whether a certain amount of contact creates an illegal disadvantage. WHen a team is very much better than it's opponent, it's much easier to create an advantage that is illegal if it involves illegal contact. I've never made anything up, at all. If the winning team plays clean, I've got nothing, and I"m not calling breathing fouls. If the losing team can't make their shots over legal defense, they get no "help" from me. But especially for travelling and contact, they also get a lot more "consideration" and holding the whistle to see if they gain any advantage. If they're poor enough players to lose in a shutout, they probably can't even foul well!

I did a holiday tournament a few years ago with a new charter school against a pretty good christain school, and because of a scheduling mix up I was working it alone, 55-0 with 2:30 minutes left in the game.

There is no running clock in Arizona, so no luck there. The team that had the next game were coaching from the stands trying to help this team out. I managed to get them to the foul line enough to make the final score 59-3.

I did a 95-14 GV game two years ago. 62-7 at the half and the teams 6'5" player had 40 points at the half.

Jmo, but I completely disagree with that whole concept, and I always have. It's not our job to impose our own personal values or beliefs into a ballgame. It's also not part of our job to become judge and jury to pass our own personal judgement on a team, and then become the executioner too. It is our job to call the game fairly and evenly, and keep it under control. What you're doing can, in no way imo, be called officiating a game fairly and evenly. Let the people who run a league decide what they think is fair or not. That's why running clocks, for example, get introduced into the rules. It's their job to make the rules; it's our job to call the rules, even the ones we don't like. If you want to loosen up or tighten up on the contact--fine- but loosen up or tighten up at both ends, not just against one team. Again, jmo. [/B][/QUOTE]

I certainly respect your opinion. However, when things get out of hand if one team keeps pouring it on no good can possibly come out of this situation. In baseball it would be called "bush". Losing team becomes frustrated and suddenly you have cheap shots. An example was my game last night. Winning team is approaching 30 point lead. Losing team was cameing close to hammering uncontested lay-ups fortunately they didn't. I've been doing this long enough that I can see the direction we are heading and I was prepared to deal with it. The winning team was pressing the whole game but midway through the third quarter the Coach called off the press and things calmed down. If I can help this process along by calling a few more fouls (fouls that normally I may or may not pass on) I'll do it. I might be able to avoid injuries, and the clock keeps running. Just my thoughts on this.

I had a final score of 101-6. I probably would have enjoyed the shutout you had a little more. I even stopped all pressure and double teaming with the agreement of both coaches and it still didn't help. Sometimes you just have to smile and roll with it.