Protect the *Star Player ???

[RollTide]

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?

[ref18]

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.

[cmckenna]

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.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by RollTide
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?

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. -ref18

Well said.

[Mark Padgett]

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.

[bradfordwilkins]

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.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

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.

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

[SF]

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.

[davidw]

Originally posted by zebraman

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

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]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by davidw
[/B]

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 other team?

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

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

[davidw]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

And exactly how do you figure that your action in keeping one team's "star" in the game is fair to the other 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.

[Mark Padgett]

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

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.

[davidw]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

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]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by davidw

[/B]

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.

[TimTaylor]

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.