Do your association, camp instructors, district coordinators, etc. teach you to protect the star players?

Do they teach you to try to keep the star players in the game (from fouling out)?

Do they teach you to know when any teams key players have four fouls and make sure your parnters are aware of it too?

Do any of you have any practical philosophy concerning this you would be interested in sharing with this board?

I call fouls on all players equally. Just because he's the start player, doesn't mean he gets to stay in the game any longer then the rules permit.

Now saying that, I like to know when any player has 4 fouls, that way someone doesn't get fouled out on a marginal call. If it's going to disqualify someone it's gonna be a good call.

Maybe in the NBA. Anywhere else, as far as I am concerned, a foul is a foul. I don't care who the player is.

1) No
2) No
3) No, just aware of the bonus situation
4) I call fouls on all players equally. Just because he's the start player, doesn't mean he gets to stay in the game any longer then the rules permit. <i>-ref18</i>

Well said. :)

If you don't change the way you call fouls regardless of who the player is, then why do you make this statement? If that player has four fouls and he does something that you would have called a foul if it had been his first, then call it now. Treating him any other way would be unfair to everyone.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ref18

Now saying that, I like to know when any player has 4 fouls, that way someone doesn't get fouled out on a marginal call. If it's going to disqualify someone it's gonna be a good call.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you don't change the way you call fouls regardless of who the player is, then why do you make this statement? If that player has four fouls and he does something that you would have called a foul if it had been his first, then call it now. Treating him any other way would be unfair to everyone.

---------------

I agree and its for this reason I ask not to be kept in the loop regarding how many individual fouls anyone has. If a coach or captain wants to know, they can go to the book.

IMHO, there is never anything wrong with using a player's 4th foul as a gentle reminder to the crew that we need to have patient whistles and not anticipate a foul. Should we do that all game? Of course we should. However, a call that we wish we could have back (and who among us has never had one of those?) is magnified when it happens to be the foul that disqualifies a player with their fifth.

Z

Personally, I don't want to know how many fouls a player has during the game for this exact reason. Though I don't want a player to foul out on a ticky-tacky 5th foul, I also don't want to no call a true foul in an effort to keep him in the game. I think the best way to be impartial on this is to be aware of team fouls, ignore individual fouls and remind yourself throughout the game to have a patient whistle. Unless you're an NBA ref - then try to be sure the stars don't foul out. :D

Z,

Agree completely. Or how about this one. We all know how we call on a regular basis the multiple foul ;). Personally, I have never had one in over 30 yrs. That said, when I have a situation where more than one player may be involved in a foul, I now can chose the player with greater skills (the "star"--the one with greater skills --the one I knew had 4 fouls) to stay in the game by seeing that player B (the one with less skills)probably had the first foul.

By so doing we help to ensure a better played game because the more skilled player is still in the game. If the substitute was a better player (better skills)he would probably be in the game already. When the player with less skills enters, do the chances of a higher level of a play decrease? IMO, it probably does. Is this always true? Of course not? Is it another little game mgmt. technique that might help ensure a better played game? Possibly. Have I used it as such in my calls? Yes. It is like Z said, a gentle reminder to stay in the game, have a patient whistle--game awareness.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't go looking to make up fouls that weren't there. "B" had to be involved in the above mentioned foul sequence before I implement this choice. And it is not something that happens that frequently--just enough to keep it 'on file' for use as the situation may allow.

[Edited by davidw on Feb 18th, 2005 at 06:15 PM]

We all know how we call on a regular basis the multiple foul ;). Personally, I have never had one in over 30 yrs. That said, when I have a situation where more than one player may be involved in a foul, I now can chose the player with greater skills (the "star"--the one with greater skills --the one I knew had 4 fouls) to stay in the game by seeing that player B (the one with less skills)probably had the first foul.

By so doing we help to ensure a better played game because the more skilled player is still in the game.

[/B][/QUOTE]And exactly how do you figure that your action in keeping one team's "star" in the game is fair to the <b>other</b> team?

Aren't we supposed to be "fair" both ways?

Jmo, but your "star" philosophy belongs in the NBA and nowhere else.

And exactly how do you figure that your action in keeping one team's "star" in the game is fair to the <b>other</b> team?

Aren't we supposed to be "fair" both ways?

Jmo, but your "star" philosophy belongs in the NBA and nowhere else. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,

editing my post eliminates the overall philosophy and puts a different twist on it. Question: have you ever called a multiple foul? Have you ever had one happen where you could have?

My use of this "call" has been used by me, I would guess, a very small handfull of times. It is not that often a possible multiple foul situation arises. Especially involving the scenario covered.

Maybe it only belongs in the NBA, I'm not sure if I agree but I also not sure I disagree. I'll mull that one over. Do I apply it evenly--to one team as another--of course.

And where in the rulebook does it say this is your job? Here's a thought - if you don't want to call the multiple foul, call the foul on the first player to foul.

If the fouls happen at exactly the same time, deciding to call the foul on the player with the lowest number, ridiculous as it sounds, is fairer than choosing the less skilled player, regardless of the number of fouls each player has at the time.

In HS and college, you should assume that each player has put in the same amount of effort and dedication as his teammates, and to show favoritism to one over the other because he is "more skilled" is flat out wrong. That should never be a factor in making a call of this nature.

Mark,

But in all other organized games, ie. AAU, Y, even pros. we should assume this is not the case? Either you argument covers them all or none. As far as your rulebook question, there are many things we use on the court to manage a game that is not covered in the rulebook, hence all the camps, mentors and other aids we use to improve as an official. Because it is not covered in the rulebook does not disqualify its potential use.

Like I mentioned to JR, I am willing to reconsider how I look at this rarely used call as it pertains to my game management philosophy. I'm still mulling it over.

David

[Edited by davidw on Feb 18th, 2005 at 06:56 PM]

1) Question: have you ever called a multiple foul?

2) Have you ever had one happen where you could have?

[/B][/QUOTE]1) Nope, never called one. Saw one once about 40 years ago and I still remind that official about it. He'll die before he lives that one down. I might call a multiple foul though under certain circumstances. If I felt that 2 defenders were deliberately going after an opponent and they both nailed that opponent at approximately the same time, I might consider intentional or flagrant personal fouls on both of them. I've never had that occur though.

2) Yes, I've had occasions where a player going to the hoop got nailed by 2 defenders at approximately the same time. I just try to figure if one got there a tad earlier than the other one, or if there was possibly more contact involved with one of the fouls. Other than that, it's just a crapshoot. I just pick one and go.

What Mark said.......

And yes, I have called a multiple foul...once I think in the last 5 years. The requirements for a true multiple foul are pretty tight & rarely occur - usually one player clearly fouls before the other, which makes the ball dead and any subsequent contact is ignored unless it is judged intentional or flagrant.

Again, out of curiosity, at what level did you call that multiple foul and additionally, how was it received by coach, fans, partner(s) and any other in attendance witnessees?

But in all other organized games, ie. AAU, Y, even pros. we should assume this is not the case? Either you argument covers them all or none.
[/B][/QUOTE]David, take the NBA right out of this discussion. The NBA is geared for entertainment, and the rules are set up to mesh with that entertainment, with their relaxed stances on travelling, palming, etc. The NBA rules philosophy basically has nothing in common with the other rulesets- NFHS, NCAA and FIBA.

Mark's point, which I fully agree with, is valid for all rules outside the NBA. You're favoring one team over another with your philosophy, and that's just about the worst thing an official can do. Coaches and players can live with bad officiating; they can't live with unfair officiating.

David, take the NBA right out of this discussion. The NBA is geared for entertainment, and the rules are set up to mesh with that entertainment, with their relaxed stances on travelling, palming, etc. The NBA rules philosophy basically has nothing in common with the other rulesets- NFHS, NCAA and FIBA.

Mark's point, which I fully agree with, is valid for all rules outside the NBA. You're favoring one team over another with your philosophy, and that's just about the worst thing an official can do. Coaches and players can live with bad officiating; they can't live with unfair officiating.

[/B][/QUOTE]

You are saying it is automatically unfair. So far I'm not sure I believe it is-- in the scenario I have mentioned. It's application is very limited. I would call it at one end the same as the other.

As far as my comment that his argument covers them all or none, I was referring to his point that we must assume all teammates are equal at the high school and college level regarding their dedication etc. Not to anything else.

I truly do not believe this philosophy is patently unfair. But then, I am still mulling it over.

David, I really can't see how you can state favoring one player over another isn't unfair. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Using the rationale that a "more skilled player" deserves special treatment is contrary to my beliefs. How about we give special treatment to the most affluent player? That would be more in line with what America is all about. ;)

1. For goodness sake, no.
2. Heck no.
3. No, but we are cognizant of whether or not a player has 4 fouls. On the 5th foul, that player is disqualified and there are very particular steps that have to be taken in a DQ situation. For that reason, it is good to know when a DQ might come up. But it isnt relevant to "star" status. I agree with the prior post that I dont want my foul that is a DQ on a player to be a call I wish I had back, but that pertains to any player's 5th, not just to alleged "star" players.
4. See above.

"Protect the star" is just not something that is taught, or not that I have ever heard. Now I'm not working BV games, but they dont have special meetings I dont attend and I have sat in on many of their pregames and never once heard a varsity crew say "make sure you dont foul out star player" or anything even remotely close to that. The only thing I have heard officials say is "see what you call and call what you see."

Frankly, to the extent I personally watch score or time or fouls it is situational and to anticipate possible future plays or situations (possible upcoming end of game timeouts after a score, possible intentional fouls, score getting lopsided so game might get chippy, knowing we are at 6 fouls so the next is 1 and 1, etc).

But I'm just a newbie, so what do I know :)

Hope that helps.

Clark

Mark,

Don't know who the more affluent player(s) are.;) I guess it may be how we define "special treatment" and whether that special treatment we dole out is patently unfair. I guess my position is tied to what I believe we do almost from the moment we walk on the floor. We use our judgement. Do we pass on that; do we enforce this; does doing this make for a better game--for all; is the game make better or worse if I do this, or don't do that?

My use of the "call" is very limited (possible multiple foul sitch involving starter with 4 fouls and teammate with less).

When the fact is presented in a game to me, whether noted by myself or pointed out to me by a partner, that so & so 'starter' has 4 fouls, I take that as the reminder that we want to use our judgement to make sure we don't make the call most of us might pass on most of the time. The reminder about the patient whistle. When the air hits the whistle and it's too late to call it back and we know that was not a great call--none of us likes to be there. The "4 foul notice" is most of the time just one of other opportunities to remind oneself not to get "there".

I find this discussion interesting from one other aspect. I have reviewed where and when I developed this philosophy. It obviously came after I moved up to varsity level games quite some years ago. It came after working with a fair number of "upper level" officials who passed it on to me. There take on it seemed to be more liberal in its application. I have kept my application limited to the situation described. And it is still part of the position of many fellow officials I work with today. Not that any of that makes it right. In fact, If your position is right and mine wrong (and just who gets to decide that?:) ) then your challenge of mine holds great merit in de-mything this too often applied philosophy.

Still mulling.
David

I truly do not believe this philosophy is patently unfair. [/B][/QUOTE]We disagree totally and completely. End of story.

We disagree totally and completely. End of story. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,

Why did you edit out the fact that I mentioned I was still "mulling it over" as in, I see merit in your arguement and am considering whether I should alter mine?

If you are going to quote me, I believe you have responsibility to do so accurately. To leave off the next sentance which greatly impacts the meaning of the previous, I believe, misinterprets my position.

I've follwed this board enough to know I value your opinion. I may not always agree, as is all our prerogative, but I do respect it.

Put back into your quote of me: "But I'm still mulling it over." and your "End of Story" conclusion loses its impact, imo.

Still, thanks for your response, I gives me pause to think.

David

JR,

Why did you edit out the fact that I mentioned I was still "mulling it over" as in, I see merit in your arguement and am considering whether I should alter mine?

If you are going to quote me, I believe you have responsibility to do so accurately. To leave off the next sentance which greatly impacts the meaning of the previous, I believe, misinterprets my position.

I've follwed this board enough to know I value your opinion. I may not always agree, as is all our prerogative, but I do respect it.

Put back into your quote of me: "But I'm still mulling it over." and your "End of Story" conclusion loses its impact, imo.

Still, thanks for your response, I gives me pause to think.

David [/B][/QUOTE]I took you at your exact word, David. You said "I <b>truly do not believe</b> this philosophy is patently unfair". Well, I truly believe that your philosophy <b>is</b> completely unfair. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect your right to have that opinion. I don't agree with your opinion or philosophy however, and never will. End of story. No animus involved.

I have a very true story from my early years as a women's college basketball official. Back in the good old days of AIAW, NAGWS, and blue/white striped shirts, blue pants, shorts, or coulottes, and white shoes, I attended the University of Miami (Florida) and dated a girl on the women's basketball team. Ethics precluded me from officiating UM. I would never accept an assignment to officiate UM at home, but at least four to six times a year I would officiate them on the road, back then a college's AD hired the officials for its home games. And I was hired by the schools even though they knew I was attending UM and my sister was playing golf for UM. More often than not UM would lose and the UM players thought that I was too fair as an official. But I remember one UM game on the road when my girl friend fouled out and I called ALL five fouls on her. Needless to say, she did not talk to me for about three days.

MTD, Sr.

If you hadn't said that your sister played golf, I'd have been fine with this. But how could you possibly be impartial with your sister playing golf for your school? I can't imagine any AD being okay with that. :D

Maybe I am missing something here so help me out.

First, If the "philosophy" davidw is perpetuating is if two players of team A foul a B player at nearly the same time the we should call the foul on the player with less fouls to keep "the star" player in the game then I have to agree with JR and others that even the slightest hint I favor star players in administering the rules of the game nullifies my integrity as being an unbiased observer of the game.

As JR said, just call the foul on the player who fouled FIRST. If it is a 5th foul on a star player then so be it.

Secondly, I can not see how multiple foul in the above situation benefits a player with four fouls. BOTH would be charged with a personal foul. And to make matters worse if both players had 4 fouls BOTH would foul out.

Freshman boys, both pretty good teams. The situation was similar to what Jurassic postulated...end of game situation, A down by one. A1 gets a pass at the elbow, turns & shoots - B1 & B2 both going hard at A1 from opposite sides sandwich him between them as he's taking the shot at what appeared to be the exact same instant. They were sorta trying for the block, and the contact wasn't quite severe enough to call the intentional or flagrant, so I went with the multiple instead. Basket was good (how I'm still not quite sure.....), putting A up by one.

Obviously when I reported it coach B wanted an explanation so I quickly got both coaches together & briefly explained the call - took maybe 15 seconds. Their response was basically "Oh, OK..." My partner was a first year - only his 5th or 6th game. He looked a little confused, so I told him to just trust me, then we administered the two free throws (one for each foul). A1 missed both & B got the rebound, but couldn't get a shot off in time.

Afterwards in the locker room I dug out the books & went over it with my partner.

As for the fans & any other nonparticipants in the gym, I don't pay any attention to them and couldn't care less how they perceived it.

Daryl, David's philosophy is that you deliberately do <b>not</b> call a multiple foul in these situations. You call one foul only, and you always call it on the non-star. The star is allowed to skate. As I said, it's not very fair to the other team imo.

Please don't do that again. The image of you running down the floor in your baby-blue coulottes just flashed through my head. I temporarily went blind. Thank goodness. :D

The blue was navy blue, not baby blue.

MTD, Sr.

Juulie:

It was a very different time in women's college basketball in the 1970's. Every coach (with two exceptions) in the collegiate game in Florida (both 4 year schools and jr. colleges) were also a NAGWS registered women's college basketball official. In all of the games that I officiated I never had an official question me or my partner during a game. After every game both coaches and all of the players would shake hands with the officials and thank them for officiating the game for them. It was not until the NCAA and NJCAA took over women's college basketball and we started wearing black and white did I "whacked" my first college coach. I always asked the AD's if it was alright for to officiate the games, and they always told me that if they thought I would show favoritism they wouldn't ask me to officiate the games. The game my girl friend fouled out was played on a Thursday afternoon, and it snowed in Miami, that weekend.

MTD, Sr.

We started this off as a discussion about protecting starters.

Now we're reminiscing about MTD's college sweatheart.

Maybe she's in his attic, behind the J Dallas Shirley monument?

Sweatheart? Hmmm....maybe tht's the reason she might be in his attic.

Thanks JR for the clarification.

Davidw.

I hope in mulling things over you decide to just call the game without respect to star player, affluency, or any other facet that is not germane to the action that actually happens on the court.

Each call we make should solidify our reputation as being unbiased and fair observers of the game. It gives us the reputation that we are upholding the honor and dignity of the avocation we have chosen but only when we exercise the authority we have been given in an impartial, yet firm and controlled manner.

Officials are already perceived in a negative light just by stepping on the court, ie call homers, blind, etc.

To state publically we do, or even would consider, passing on fouls committed by the star player, or by selectively calling the foul on someone else (even in multiple foul situation) just to keep the star in the game then we do a disservice to not only ourselves but also to our fellow officials...not to mention the other student-athlets, coaches, players, fans hurt by this deliberate act.

Hope you change your philosophy on this one?

Davidw.

Just one other thing to mull over.

In an earlier post you mentioned to apply your same philosophy at both ends of the court.

What about your partners?

What if your call/no-call keeps star player of Team A with 4 fouls in the game and next time down the court your partner calls an OBVIOUS foul which is the 5th foul on the star player for Team B? Even if he shares your same philosophy it is not fair for the latter team to have only their star fouled out of the game.

What if it were YOU that had to make the call?

Mark -- it was a joke. ha, ha, ha. You know?

Maybe she's in his attic, behind J. Dallas Shirley. :eek:

Surely you must be kidding!

Please don't call me Shirley.

I'm working on an MBA at a D-III school around here and I do get scheduled to work baseball games at and including the school. I never even considered turning them back -- I just take classes there and simply do not care whether their sports teams win anything.

I think that davidw believes that it's not so unfair if you apply the same rule to both teams. Similarly, is it unfair to tell an offensive player to get out of the lane? Some say yes, but some would agree that it's okay if you give both teams the same courtesy.

I have been told to treat the star player differently, but it was phrased differently. "If you call a foul on a star player, you better be 100% sure it was a foul. Not 98%, not 99%. Ideally, we should be 100% on every foul call, but this is the real world. If you're going to make a mistake, don't make it on the star player."

CCA book says this is a no-no in its "Officials shall not..." section. Maybe you should've kept your identity a secret.

Juulie:

I take your word for it that you were trying to be silly about it, but I had serious concerns about officiating UM games, but the opposing AD's assured me that it was okay. One has to remember that this was the early and mid 1970's, women's college sports had yet to be corrupted by money.

MTD, Sr.

Why? Should I be nervous or something?

BTW, I just thumbed through the CCA baseball manual. There's nothing in there that says that....just that umpires should not call unless "free from obligation" and other such stuff. Believe me, I am free from such obligation.

But I've decided to email the assignor and disclose the "conflict" and see what he thinks. My baseball schedule is pretty full and if I end up with two fewer dates it won't be all that awful.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Feb 21st, 2005 at 01:36 AM]

Just kidding about keeping your identity secret. :) CCA Officials' Code of Conduct (basketball, page 10). "Good officials shall: not accept game assignments for any school the official attended, coached at or had any affiliation..."

I could care less about you working the games, just wanted to give you a heads up about what's in the book.

A few thoughts and a game situation from a few years ago:

officials MUST be aware of individual and team fouls, regardless of how you feel about this "star player" treatment. Being aware of these things are what seperate good officials from great officials. This includes: game clock, shot clock, score, team fouls, individual fouls, time outs remaining, etc. The more you know about the game you are officiating, the more apt you are to call a better game. Knowlege is a GOOD thing

siuations:
a few years ago, I was officiating a HS boys varsity game between two small Christian schools. The visiting team was clearly better than the home team, and had 3 or 4 players who understood the game and how to play. The home team had one basketball player (#23) and 4 other people on the court. He was the only kid on the team who could dribble, pass, or shoot. It was a 20 point game in the 3rd quarter and the home team was obviously outmatched. With about 2 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter, one of my partners calls the 4th foul on #23 for the home team. We then have a timeout and I get together with my partners to discuss a few things. I mention that #23 has 4 fouls and is the only reason the game is even reasonable at the moment. I state that it is in the best interest of the game/fans/players/officials if we slow our whistles down with him. If it's an obvious foul, we have to give it to him, but otherwise, let's be a little patient. I never said not to call a foul, just use common sense. U1 nods his head and says ok. U2 is completely disgruntled about this statement and says, "if it's a foul, i'm calling it." First possession out of the timeout for the home team, he has has a marginal handcheck 30 feet from the basket to foul out #23. Game situation says to me that we could've passed on this foul.

Had a JUCO girls game yesterday where the visiting team only had 7 players. One girl had fouled out, and their other big girl (#23) had 4 fouls. Obvious foul on visiting team with two girls (#23 & #22) in the area. I give the foul to #22 (only had 1 foul at the time) and the HOME coach thanked me for not fouling out #23. It would have been a massacre after that.

Not all fouls are black/white. Most of the time, they are dependant on game situation.

but on that note, i did eject the "star" player from a team earlier in the year for a flagrant elbow in the first quarter of a boys varsity game. coach tried to tell me that i needed to be aware that he was the star player and not to eject him. I told the coach that the player himself needed to be aware he was the star player and not flagrantly throw an elbow.

[Edited by TerpZebra on Feb 22nd, 2005 at 11:43 AM]

I disagree completely with your philosophy too. Is it in the best interest of the <b>opposing</b> team and their players/fans if you won't call fouls equally on <b>every</b> player on the floor, no matter what team they are on?

On page 10 of the rule book, there is a section called "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES". Note the words "equal opportunity" and "fair play" contained therein. What you are proposing is contrary to the ideals outlined in that statement. Call it both ways, iow.

I disagree with so many things in this post, it's hard to know where to start. First of all, officials don't "foul players out". Players commit fouls, we just point them out when it happens.

Second, we should only know how many individual fouls there are on a player when that player reaches five. "Keeping players ("star" or not) in the game" is NOT, repeat NOT our responsibility.

Third, we are supposed to call the game the same from beginning to end. Nowhere in any rulebook does it state we call it differently at the end, depending on the score.

Fourth, whether or not a team has a "star player(s)" is totally irrelevant to the way we are supposed to call the game. If we call it properly, the "star" will wind up being the star and the team that plays the best will win because they played the best, not because we called the game improperly.

If a coach ever told me to treat his "star player" differently, I would tell him I am a "star referee" and he should treat me differently - with total silence the rest of the game.

I disagree with this philosophy completely.

Dan,

I agree. There is so much we do and don't do in a game that is not "covered in the rule book". In fact, that is one theme that is brought up quite frequently here, and why, as I mentioned before, we do all the other things we do to make ourselves better officials, besides read and study "the rule book".

This can be a very touchy subject (as we all know). I belive that there is the "Letter of the Rule" and "Spirit of the Rule" We all have rule books and there are instances when in previous posts that a "star" player is the only player on the team.

I belive that 99% of the time, I will go with the spirit of the rule and have a slow whistle should a "star" player be in foul trouble or report the foul on someone in the vicinity (post play) rather than have the "star" player sit on the bench.

You'd give the foul to someone "in the vicinity" rather than give it to the player that actually committed the foul? Just to keep a "star" player in the game?

I give up. I don't even wanna argue with someone that would do something like that. Or referee with them.

I've been reading this for a while, and have run across both sides of this argument in the past. I have always thought the game needs to be called the same - if it's a foul in the last minute, it should be a foul in the first minute. If it's a block under one basket, the similar play should be a block under the other basket.
However...;)
We use advantage/disadvantage all the time. Contact in a BV game that is easy to let go would definitely be a foul in a 5th grade G game. Should we call the same contact a foul no matter what level, or should there be some allowance for a particular game situation? Likewise, could advantage/disadvantage also apply in this instance? TerpZebra's example of giving a foul to the second player rather than the star is, in my mind, a good example. He didn't say it was obvious who the foul was on, but he was aware of the star's 4th, and called the foul on the other player to keep, in his mind, that team from being put at an (unfair?) disadvantage. His knowledge of the foul count allowed a game to continue a little more fairly. Also, his example of his partner fouling out the player on a hand check sounds like his partner was looking for something after his comment, but we don't know if there had been hand-check fouls called earlier. If so, and it was called the same throughout the game, then the player legitimately fouled out. But, if this was a marginal call, it can make a game situation worse from a coach management standpoint. "Make sure it's obvious" shouldn't be "code" for calling it different for certain players, just a reminder to ourselves to make sure there's no doubt it was a foul. And, yes, that should apply to the first minute as well as the last. Sometimes, we just need to remind ourselves of that.

JR,

I grabbed this quote not to specifically address its content, but to ask you another question.

As I have mentioned several times,I am currently re-evaluating my position on this whole matter. My question is, as I'm fairly certain you have found yourself in the situation where a partner(s)has brought the "4th foul" on "so and so" to your attention, whether in pre-game or on the court, how have you handled that? What has been your reply to them, in pregame and on the floor?

As I have had this happen many times, I am contemplating how I might deal with those situations were I in your position or if I was to alter my philosophy such that it would be more in line with that which you promulgate.

David

Protecting the star player is NBA philosophy. I happen to like the NBA philosophy, but I am careful about how I interject it in my games.

Yes, I have heard this more than just a few times. My reply usually is something along the lines of "Yeah - and if he fouls again that will make five".

Call it both ways.

I don't like the use of the term "star player" as it relates to our overall topic of discussion. I prefer "starters"

And while I've limited my use of "protectionism" to a very narrow set of circumstances, which have shown themselves to arise very rarely, (ie. two teammates appearing to foul an opponent at approx. the same time that instead of calling a multiple foul, the teammate without the 4th foul is judged to have committed the first foul, the natural by-product of which, allows the <u>starter</u> to remain in the game with hopes that a better played game is enjoyed by all.)

All that said, I never limit this application to any one player--"Star"--nor to one team. When I have applied it, and near as I can recall, that has been maybe less than 1/2 doz. times in over 30 years, it has been to any starter on either team. Also, I am willing to cease even this application if, in my heart of hearts, I feel it is unfair. I have not positioned myself to stubbornly maintin this philosophy without regard to input from others--especially those I respect.

The subject continues to turn over and over in my mind as I attempt to examine all sides.

Thanks for all the input of many of you on this board.

David

Whether right or wrong, I don't think you can watch a weekend of D-1 games on TV and not think that this philosophy is at play. It seems that often the player with 4 fouls doesn't get called on similar action that let to the fouls 1-4, or gets a pass on the 5th, which goes to his teammate that was in on the action.

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).

I thought that when I became a senior member, no one could disagree with me. :)

I would do the above also. I cringe inside when I hear "make his last one a good one." I like to make ALL of the fouls good ones.

Remember, I did say "rare" instances. I agree that favoritism, whether it's to a particular player or team, is a definite no-no. It goes back to our credability. We HAVE to be completely impartial when calling a game. In any normal, run-of-the-mill game, this information is not useful to me. In fact, in most cases, even if I know who has 4 fouls I still make a call or no-call based on my reaction to the play. I'm not good enough to be thinking, "Hmm, let's see here, #23, ooh, wait he has 4 fouls, hmm, who else is close, well, there's #15, oops, I can't remember how many fouls he has, oh yea, there's #35, he gave me a dirty look earlier in the game, plus he's ugly, maybe I'll give it to him instead." I can't do that. And I sure hope I'm not working with a partner that does.

However, as I've progressed (however slowly), I've been told that the officials who advance are usually the one who manage the game the best. Managing the game has many facets, not just knowing what is a foul and knowing how to tell a coach to be quiet. It seems like the coach who thanked TerpZebra for not fouling out the opponent's best player might have rated him a little higher for showing "favoritism" to the other team. Why is that?

Like davidw, I'm not entirely sold on this philosophy, but it appears to be something to take under consideration. Going back to the original post on this thread, I have never been told outright at a camp to favor a team's "star" player. But I have been told to be aware of situations during a game, including foul counts. Maybe the key to game management is knowing where that elusive line is of "favoritism", and when (if ever), to cross it. If I ever find it, I'll be happy to post detailed instructions on this forum. ;) In the meantime, I'm still looking.

ROFLMAO


On a more seriouse note: And if my memory is correct, and it probably isn't, the game in which I fouled out my girl friend was just before Valentine's Day, so maybe I had an some hidden agenda while officiating her game.

MTD, Sr.