Mark,

Do you find such a remark tends to increase, decrease or have no effect on the goodwill in your very important relationship you have on the floor with your partner(s)?

As I try to envision me responding in similar fashion, I have a difficult time not seeing that relationship suffer if I were to say something similar.

My last post was taken out of context (of course I expected that because I didn't elaborate on it a little more.)

When I said I would call it on someone in the vicinity I meant that if the ball is taken to the bucket and two or more players attempt to block a shot and one of them was the "start" I would come out with someone else even though one or more of them hit the shooter with the body or on the arm.

I would not however come out of there to bail the "start" player out. If he/she committted a solid foul, they would get the foul.

It reminds my partner that I have no interest in "protecting" players. It also lets them know that if they do it, I will be pissed. The people I work with know they don't want that to happen.

I have to get back into this thread on a more serious note.

The first thing I have to say, is that officials have no business protecting a star player from fouling out of a game. That is not the job of the game officials.

Now, to illustrate how gray this issue is, let me relate a situation that Daryl and I had just a few years back in an AAU Girls' (13U) National Championship tournament game.

We had a consolation bracket game on the last day of the tournament. Team B had started the tournament with 9 girls' but was down to only six players when it met Team A for the last game of the tournament for both teams. The game was a mis-match from the beginning and Daryl and I only called the obvious fouls. And still with three minutes left in the game, Team A was leading by sixty points. Team A had stopped pressing after the first four minutes of the game and would have played the younger siblings of its players if it could have done so. By now yet Team B was done to only five players because one player had fouled out. Of the remaining five players, four had four fouls apiece and one player had none. Needless to say that any remaining fouls committed by a player from Team B as assessed to the player with no fouls. Head Coach A never complained fortunately we managed the last three minutes of the game with only two fouls against Team B.

MTD, Sr.

100% correct. Any official that tries to do otherwise is way off base.

However, MP, it sounds like you might not allow the possiblity that maybe your partners are just giving you information. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. When one of my partners tells me this, I have taken it as a reminder to make sure I call the obvious. On both ends. Sure, I should be doing it all game, but sometimes the mind wanders (i.e. thinking about fishnet stockings) and the reminder brings thing back into focus. But do you allow the possibility of some rare game-management type situations where knowing this info could help? MTD's example is an excellent one, as well as TerpZebra's. It not about protecting players, but it is more about game management.

Strange how some officials will ignore certain rules citing game management or common sense, but then accost other officials for doing the same thing to another rule.

It's funny to hear how pious someone sounds when they are on the side of strict adherence to the book, then read them criticize someone else on another post for their stiffness.

It may have something to do with the fact that favoring one player or team over another has got absolutely nothing to do with game management, common sense or the rules. We're simply debating favoritism. I don't believe in it. Others obviously do.

If you mean the individual foul count below five, the answer is no. In fact, just the opposite. If coaches are aware you have knowledge of the foul count, that just adds to their feelings that you are showing favoritism, especially if you pass on what would be the fifth foul on their opponent's "star" player.

It may have something to do with the fact that favoring one player or team over another has got absolutely nothing to do with game management, common sense or the rules. We're simply debating favoritism. I don't believe in it. Others obviously do. [/B][/QUOTE]

But, then, that is <U>your</U> opinion, isn't it? In the opinion of others, it may be considered to be part of one of those categories.

But, then, that is <U>your</U> opinion, isn't it? In the opinion of others, it may be considered to be part of one of those categories.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Davidw;

I agree with Jurassic on this one. The idea that fovoritism is a factor to consider in forming our OPINION on how to officiate is appalling to me. Why? Because favoritism is the complete antithesis of the Officials Code of Ethics.

As officials we are taught to react to the situation on the floor. I don't disagree with you there are situations where we as officials differ on call/no call whether involving contact or floor violations, or game management.

What I do disagree with is formulating any intentional or preconceived philosophy of how I will make my NEXT call in the game meant to "favor" any player on the court. If this is the reason we differ then to one of us the Officials Code of Ethics means nothing.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Feb 23rd, 2005 at 04:38 PM]

The Officials Code of Ethics is on page 3 of Officials Manual.

8 points are listed after introduction.

In intro how does "favoritism" relate to "exercising a high level of self-discipline..."?

In #1, how does "favoritism" affect our duty to be "impartial"?

In #3, How can we "uphold honor and dignity of the profession" if we exhibit "favoritism"?

In #6, What "respect" is gained by showing "favoritism"?

Again I ask,

Is it favoritism to verbally tell a post player to leave the paint? Is it favoritism when you don't immediately put the ball on the floor and start counting after the second horn of a time out? Is it favoritism when give a coach a warning hand signal instead of a T although no book says anything about a warning?

I can understand if you disagree with the philosophy, but don't call it favoritism.

1. I don'e tell the post player to leave the paint.
2. Only in NCAA are officials instructed that "play shall resume immediately" following the second horn. NF is less specific per an article in the November 2004 issue of Referee Magazine, pages 16-18.
3. If a coach earned a T, then I give it.

From Dictionary:

defn: Favor: n. more than fair treatment, too great kindness. Syn. partiality, favoritism.

defn: Favorite: n. a person treated with special favor.

defn: Favoritism: n. a favoring of one over others. Syn. partiality.

Fits your philosophy exactly. No other word as adequately describes it.

So, what word do you use to describe your philosophy?

I think I was missing your point. You are not talking about favoring one team over the other, you're saying that we are favoring a player on team A over another player on team A. Is that correct?

If so, then I definitely agree with you. We are exhibiting all the characteristics of favoritism, which is often exhibited in NBA. We are not in the NBA (judging by the meager pay we attract), so we should not call it like NBA refs do.

BUT, there are times where the knowlege of which player has 4 fouls is useful (to me). One such situation is the multiple foul where both players make contact almost simultaneously. I will give the foul to the player not in foul trouble or not the team's best player. If that makes me a bad ref, then sue me (since I have nothing, you will get nothing).