First round playoff games last week and I'm calling with guys from other associations.

Now i know we all have different mechanics so we have good pregames and all is pretty good, but a couple of what i would call "unusual" calls.

Just wonderin if anyone else has noticed the same.

Sitch 1 - 55-50 with about one minute to play. Trailing team has ball. Sets offense same play they've run all game and suddenly - three seconds. (we had not had a three second call all game) I'm in C and kid has his heel on the line in post.


Sitch 2 - boys semi-final and good game but a little rough in the post. Home team up 65-60 with about two minutes to play. Suddenly out of nowhere C calls an intentional foul on home team for holding on an inbounds play. After its over score now tied as they hit 2 Ft's plus a three.

Have to admit I've not seen that one before. After the game he said that defense player grabbed offense by the jersey. But intentional??

Just wonderin if others have seen the same type of stuff which makes the whole crew look bad in the midst of a good game.

I still don't know why our state won't assign crews from the same associations for playoffs. We do in baseball, football, but not basketball.

Thanks
David

You're second-guessing your partners pretty good, aren't you, David? The problem is....are you sure that they aren't doing the same about you?

The 3-seconds sounds iffy- fer sure- but do you know all of the dynamics on that call? Warnings ignored, etc.?

The intentional foul coulda been the right call too. Personally, I discuss calls like these with my partners, but I always try to avoid substituting my judgement for theirs. Especially when the call <b>is</b> their's.Their association may have instructed their officials to call shirt-grabbing late in games an intentional foul.

Most associations or officials' groups do some things slightly different than their neighbors or other groups. You may have made a call in this game that had your partner's heads shaking too. It would be great if we had uniformity across the country, but that ain't gonna happen-- so we just do the best we can.

Jmo, but when you're assigned to these games, just do the best job that you can. Enjoy the experience of meeting and working with different officials. Jmo.

David --

I have similar experiences when I'm at camp in the summer. what I've learned to do is ask about it later, if there's a chance to. Sometimes p will say, "That's how I was taught". Or they might say, "Blew that one!" Or, "I thought the rule was..." As JR says, you can learn something from each experience. And as a coach posts here, every so often, If someone isn't a good example, he might be a terrible warning!

Its still a lot of fun though!
 

You're right. Its still a great game and lots of fun. Sometimes just makes you want to scratch your head and go ... hum.

I guess since i was a coach for 6 years before I was an official I still feel for the coaches sometimes - but not too often.

Four more games next week, i'm looking forward to it and again with different partners from all over the state etc.,

Thanks
David

Why would there be such different mechanics across in the same state? Does your state not set some standards that everyone has to apply?

Peace

Yes and No
 

the state sets the standards but each association still has a lot of say in what goes on.

For example - all of our games in our association were three man mechanics. Our association told the schools that was the way we would do it and they were fine with it.

The majority of the state is still using two man with the exception of the larger schools.

Also since we have a lot of college officials, we use the flex a lot and sometimes will do straight college mechanics.

The state still likes the old style of C always across the table and lots of long switches etc.,

But, we're making progress. Maybe one day we'll all be on the same page.

But its not unusual to have a playoff game with an official who has not called three man all year long. That is a big problem IMO. No matter what you cover in pregame, it still makes for a shaky game coverage wise.

thanks
David

Your state should address this then.
 

I do not know what state you live in and for this discussion it really does not matter. This is what I have been talking about for years when I read this board. Associations (officials) seem to have way too much control in many states. You state should be setting the standard, not the local group. I would really think that way if the playoffs are going to be given out by the state association. Everything is not perfect here by any means, but the state here sets the agenda. Local associations are just an extension of the IHSA. If the local associations do not follow some guidelines, they will not be an association any more. We have certified clinics in our state and basically the same information is taught across the state. Those clinics are run by state clinicians and if they do not do their job properly, they lose those positions. So I can work from one part of the state to another (and I have in many cases) and we are not dealing with that different of philosophies. Now that does not mean that there are not personal philosophies out there, but you are not going to see things that cannot be talked out or see something that is so different officials cannot work together. I would say 90% of my games are with officials that do not belong to associations that I am a member of. I rarely have a problem with my partners either understanding the basic mechanics or our coverage areas. With what our state does with camps and other training, everyone has a relative good understanding of what we are supposed to do.

Peace

David, I'm curious what state? What city are you in?

I'm in Mississippi. Our state has made lots of progress and will continue to improve. Our association (insert puffed out chest here) has a great reputation all over the state. We are noted for not only being fair, but very consistent whether it be calls or mechanics.

Thanks
David

3-seconds....mmmm..might have passed on that one

Grabbing and holding the jersey...sounds like it's definitely intentional to me, unless someone can convince me otherwise.

have u stopped to consider it's the team that is winning getting called for the intentional foul? Why would the leading team commit an intentional foul? Sounds like the player got caught being a 'defensive back' in football who is holding his opponents shirt trying to keep him from making his cut so he can catch the pass.

I believe (from the description in the original post) the official was invoking the section of Rule 4.19.3 that states "foul designed to keep the clock from starting".

It is possible the official was invoking the section "contact away from the ball or not playing the ball". I have a hard time believing this is the part of the rule he was using though, because, unless the contact was excessive, I can't imagine any playoff level rated official calling an intentional foul there.

The only way I could be convinced it was a good intentional foul called is if it was being whistled against the team that was losing.

Btw David, what part of Mississippi are ya in?

I think your perception is exactly what I was thinking.

I'm in Hattiesburg.

Thanks
David

You have me thinking here. I was pretty much under the impression that grabbing the jersey was intentional, almost under any circumstances....if he wanted to hold him he could have grabbed him by the arm or the waist, or impeded him in some other manner. If a dribbler is on a breakaway, and the defender grabs his jersey from behind, I think most of you would call an intentional foul, not merely a holding foul. An intentional foul (4-19-3) is also "...to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position...and is not based on the severity of the act." Perhaps the C felt the recipient would have had a clear path to a basket, and that was the reason for the hold.

I offer this as an alternative theory.

We do not have standards in my state, the assoication determines what mechanics we are going to do.

Grabbing a shirt is accidental and not intentional?

What difference does it make who's ahead or behind? You two don't believe in calling it the same at both ends?

You two are doing a great job second-guessing a fellow official's call.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 21st, 2005 at 03:25 PM]

Devils' advocate then
 

Alright, then a different slant. How many times have you called an intentional foul for someone grabbing a shirt?

That's why the thread was started as "unusual" calls, not missed calls.

Thanks
David

The key here to me is the fact this isn't any player with ball control driving to the basket. This is a dead ball holding foul where the defender is apparently attempting to deny the offensive player from getting open to receive a pass.

In my interpretation of the rules, as they are written, this is <b>NOT</b> the intended situation of when to call an intentional foul. If this was the case, then JR, every off-the-ball holding foul call should be an intentional foul.

Btw, if officials never questioned each other, would any of us get any better?

How many times have you called an intentional foul for someone grabbing a shirt?

[/B][/QUOTE]Just about every time. It's a deliberate act and it is not a legitimate attempt at defense. Usually don't have to call it a second time in the same game either.

Note that this doesn't mean that I second-guess my partner(s) if they don't call it. Usually I'm watching my area on a throw-in, not their's, and I try to respect their judgement too.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 21st, 2005 at 03:55 PM]

Actually, if the thrower has the ball, it is a live ball foul, but a scenario.

Close game. A2 is throwing in to A1 who is streaking downcourt, beating the defender. Defender grabs A1's jersey to prevent the break-away. Is that merely a holding call?

You may want to review NFHS rule 6-1-2(b) as to when the ball becomes live on a throw-in. If it was a "dead ball holding foul", by definition it would have to an intentional or flagrant technical foul(R4-19-5c).

Not every off-ball holding foul involves the deliberate grabbing of the shirt by a defender. If it does, you maywant to read rule 4-19-3 too re:"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position" <b>or</b> "contact away from the ball or not playing the ball". Your interpretation of the rules seem to differ from the rulebook's interpretation of the rules. It is still up to your judgement as to whether you think an intentional foul should be called on this play or not, but don't try to say that the rules do not support an intentional foul being called.

Re: Devils' advocate then
 

1645 times in 26 seasons. I keep track.

How many times have I had a partner question my call? 0.

Actually, I made a mistake in my previous post. If the official had already placed the ball at the disposal of the offensive player for the throw-in, this wouldn't be a dead ball foul. We weren't given this part of the situation.

However, the game situation didn't present itself for this to be an appropriate time to use the intentional foul rule. Common sense should tell any competent official as much. Yes, we are to enforce the rule book when we're working a game. However, if we don't know how to use common sense (knowing the game/situation), our odds of interpreting and enforcing the rule book correctly aren't very good.

As for rule support, I never said there wasn't rule support to call an intentional foul.

To use one of your previous comments "is grabbing a shirt accidental or intentional", let's use that statement for the following: anytime a post player places his knee in his/her opponents butt, you could call an intentional foul, cause it's very unlikely his knee ended up in the butt by accident.


[Edited by RollTide on Feb 21st, 2005 at 04:28 PM]

I'm not touching that one.....

Are you intimating that your "common sense" is better than my "common sense"? Or that your "common sense" is better than the "common sense" of everybody and anybody that might happen to disagree with you on this call? You're certainly saying that your "common sense" is better than the "common sense" of the official who was right on the spot and made the intentional foul call in the game.

Are you also intimating that I'm not a "competent official" if I don't happen to agree with your "common sense"?

Your <b>opinion</b> on this call didn't come down from the mount. It's your <b>opinion</b> only, not gospel. I'm giving you my opinion as to how this play <b>maybe</b> should be called. What's kinda bothering me is someone saying that the official above was completely wrong when that someone never saw the call, and the rules also say that an "intentional" foul may have been the appropriate call. I don't like second-guessing my fellow officials in cases like this. That's just me though. You do what you have to do.

Btw, the odds of an official interpreting and enforcing the rules correctly are much greater when an official actually knows the rules in the first place- i.e. when the ball becomes live on a throw-in. :D

I'm simply replying to a post made by an official that was right there on the spot and apparently questioned his fellow official that had used his own 'common sense and rules knowledge' to make the call he did.

The situation that was presented by David would lead me to believe that his partner erred in choosing to call an intentional foul.

I assume you've never been on the floor with a partner who blew a call that made a big difference in the outcome (potential outcome) of a game. From listening to your posts, I'm sure none of your partners have ever questioned any of your calls either, cause you seem to be a perfect official.

Most of us aren't perfect officials, contrary to all beliefs. Those of us that aren't won't ever be perfect if the perfect officials won't help us out and let us know when we've handled a situation incorrectly.

From my understanding we are to support our fellow officials while we're on the court during the game. We're never supposed to sell them out during the game. However, once the game is over and we are off the floor, would this not be the time to question our fellow officials hoping it will lead to each of us getting better?

In fact, we're encouraged to go in after each game and instead of patting each other on the back and telling each other about what a great job we just did, we're encouraged to pick out at least 3 plays/situations that occurred during the game and ask each other what we saw. We do this to give immediate feedback on whether we handled the play the best it could've been handled, or if one of our partners knows of a better way to handle it.

1) Oh? I thought we were talking about an offcial that made a call on a throw-in that he was administering, and one of his partners that had no business watching a throw-in that was out of his primary was questioning that call. Now if he was watching it, why would his view and judgement of the play from 30 feet away be better than his partner? The calling official gave his reasons for making the call after the game. You're saying that the "common sense and rules knowledge" of the official that made the call was crappy, and you <b>still</b> haven't seen the call or talked to the calling official about it. The "situation as presented by David" might be a completely different situation if presented by the guy who made the call. Well, I never saw the call either. That's why I always give the benefit of the doubt to the official that made the call.

2)Pray tell how you can be so sure then that a call that you never saw was so definitely wrong? A call that you never have discussed with the calling official either? How can you be so sure the guy was wrong, especially when the official that made the call thought that he did have the right call? The calling official explained after the game what he called. The calling official then gave his rationale for what he called. Maybe that not good enough for you, but that's good enough for me. I've got more respect for my fellow offcials than to second-guess them that badly. Especially when I didn't see the call, or if I saw it from 30 feet away when the guy calling it was right there.

We disagree.

Apparently you aren't seeing that the official that was there was questioning his partners call. He described the situation in question, and I agree with his interpretation of how the rules seemed to have been misinterpreted and enforced erroneously. I'm basing my opinion on the situation from the way David relayed it to this board.

From the situation as it was presented to this board, I'm glad I wasn't the calling official's partner that night, because, in my opinion, yes, the entire group looks bad after that kind of call.

I was calling a state playoff game this past Friday night. One of my partners is considered to be the best official by many around this part of the state. He was the R and conducted our pregame session. One of the final statements he made before we hit the floor was this: "We're not going to put any 'crap' in the game". He then explained exactly what this statement meant to us. He said, we don't want to call anything that we're going to have a hard time explaining to a coach (especially if the game is going down to the wire and it's crunch time).

Learn the game situations, learn what you should be looking for. Once you get familiar with these 2 basic parts of officiating, your games will go a lot smoother and you'll be recognized by your peers as a solid referee, one they will not hesitate to go on the floor with at any time.

1) You're basing your opinion on an official that was watching the play from miles outside his primary. You're dumping all over a fellow official without even seeing the call he made or hearing his explanation of the call. Imo, whether you like or agree with it, anyone that does something as unprofessional as that can make also make an entire group look bad.

2) You might be have a little more credibility preaching about "basics parts of officiating" if you hadn't already shown me that you don't really have a basic grasp of the rules yourself--i.e. "dead ball holding fouls". Iow, please don't talk down to me about what I need to learn.

As I said, we just disagree. Shrug.

If I never made calls that coaches didn't understand I would never make any calls.

When you start using whether or not a coach would have a hard time understanding a call as your major criteria for how you make calls, you might as well just sit on the bench with him and ask permission to make your calls.

If a partner ever said this to me I would smack him upside the head.

Not quite correct
 

This has been blown a little out of proportion.

#1 - it wasn't 30 feet away and it wasn't necessarily out of my primary. The throw in was FT line extended. The call was made on a player on the blocks. If there was a call to be made it should have been made by the lead. (this is three man mechanics)

After we hand the ball to the thrower we are required to watch the action which in this situation was in the direction of the violation.

#2 - you didn't answer my question about would you call an intentional foul on a player who grabs another player while their are jostling for position on a throw in?

that was my question to start with. I personally think it was a very bad call. A simple foul would have been the better call in that situation because it doesn't fit the criteria for an intentional foul.

#3 - this was a very unusual call as I stated to start with. Obviously no one else has made the same call because they would have stated it.

Finally - if we can't critique out partners then why are we officials at all. Simply accept everything at face value, call your primary area and go home.

I don't play that game. This play could have affected the game, and it was so unusual that the coach nearly got a T for arguing. Surely we as officials are a team, but at that point in the contest, I was ready to find a hole to crawl in - it was that bad.

There was no way to explain the call to the coach because it made no sense, so I had to let the guy who called it explain it.

Anyway, makes a good discussion.

Thanks
David

Re: Not quite correct
 

You have yet to really describe the play, all you are offering up is your opinion.

You said the throw-in was coming from the sideline FT line extended and the foul occured on the block ball side correct?

Where was the ball? Did the thrower still have it? Was it coming to the player being held?

Based on where the throw-in was administered and where a cutter may have been coming from, the center would be in the best position to see everything.

To answer your question about an intentional for a shirt grab, yes I have called it SEVERAL times. Mostly on break aways, but I have called it when a player was cutting back door and got grabbed from behind while the pass was coming.

The official was able to explain why he called it to you, why wasn't he tableside after the call?

Why did you not huddle after this unusual call so that one of you could explain it if you were not using the correct tableside mechanic?

i don't care if the play was not explained with every detail. I would be an idiot to think that would be enough for me to take sides.

That being said, the answer is Yes. I have been in that situation. I have worked with partners that made the call that should not have been made. I have wanted to crawl into a hole because a partner did something that made the crew look bad. It happens.

I feel for ya.

On the other hand, I am not stating that this is necessarily the scenario here. Impossible for me to judge. May be or maybe not.

Either way, I get your point and it has happened. I would challenge you, David, with the question: Did you man-up and approach your partner about this situation after the game? What did the crew think about it then?

#2 - you didn't answer my question about would you call an intentional foul on a player who grabs another player while their are jostling for position on a throw in?

that was my question to start with. I personally think it was a very bad call. A simple foul would have been the better call in that situation because <font color = red>it doesn't fit the criteria for an intentional foul</font>.

[/B][/QUOTE]I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it?

I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it? [/B][/QUOTE]

Change the scenario slightly -- B1 doesn't grab A1's jersey, but instead tries to beat A1 to a spot and fails -- it still meets all the criteria you mentioned, but is (probably, hopefully) not an intentional foul.

In the original play -- if B1 and A1 were "locked up" prior to the throw-in, and B1 instnctively grabbed the jersey as A1 started to move away for the throw-in, I'd have a common foul.

If A1 had moved away and B1 reached out and grabbed the jersey because B1 recognized that s/he "was beat" on the play, I'd be more likely to support an I foul.

I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it? [/B][/QUOTE]

Lots of great rulebook talk here, but there's an aspect that's being ignored here -- did it "feel" like an intentional foul? Lots of fouls meet the "rulebook" criteria for intentional and are correctly called common fouls.

Change the scenario slightly -- B1 doesn't grab A1's jersey, but instead tries to beat A1 to a spot and fails -- it still meets all the criteria you mentioned, but is (probably, hopefully) not an intentional foul.

In the original play -- if B1 and A1 were "locked up" prior to the throw-in, and B1 instnctively grabbed the jersey as A1 started to move away for the throw-in, I'd have a common foul.

If A1 had moved away and B1 reached out and grabbed the jersey because B1 recognized that s/he "was beat" on the play, I'd be more likely to support an I foul.
[/B][/QUOTE]Exactly. I agree completely with those scenarios completely. It's always a judgement call on the part of the official responsible for the call, as it was in the original post in this thread. And if I asked you in the dressing room after the game about whatever call that you did make, and you gave me <b>your</b> reasons why you either called it a common foul or an intentional personal foul, that should have been the end of it. It's your call and I gotta have at least a little faith in your judgement.

Without seeing the play either, I'm also not gonna second-guess whatever call your judgement did end up leading you to make. Again, jmo.

Lots of great rulebook talk here, but there's an aspect that's being ignored here -- did it "feel" like an intentional foul? Lots of fouls meet the "rulebook" criteria for intentional and are correctly called common fouls. [/B][/QUOTE]I didn't ignore that aspect at all, Rich. I don't have a clue whether it "felt" like an intentional foul. How could I? I never saw the play. The only info we had was that the guy that called it "felt" that it was intentional. Without seeing it, I personally ain't gonna say that he blew the call.

That was my point.

I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it? [/B][/QUOTE]

That's good points, and I also looked in the case book and there is a similiar play.

So in retrospect, (according to the case book) this is simply NOT called because in my 12 years of calling and 10 years of coaching before that, I've never seen this type of play called.

As others have mentioned, most of the time all intentional fouls are called either on a breakaway play or in regards to time.

<b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b>

Does not apply - they were simply jostling for position like happens everytime down the court between two post players.

<b>"contact away from the ball"</b>

This may have been his interpretation because the ball was away -

<b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</b>.
this is redundant.

<i>Edited by DB because I see Rich and Bob have covered what I was thinking </i>

So another question.

If this is how intentional fouls are to be called, then why are not most fouls called in the post intentional.

We see it every day with defensive players mugging an offensive post player and either nothing is called or a simple foul is called.

Personally I think the rule makers did not put enough information in the rules with regards to this play. I know a few years back we had POE about calling intentional fouls, but that was with regards to end of the game situations.

I feel like I can learn from any good discussion, but when we have a rule, but we don't have any officials calling that portion of a rule I just start wondering why.

Thanks for the help
David

[Edited by David B on Feb 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 AM]

David, the bottom line still is that your partner made a call based on his best judgement. That call was his to make, and he made it. The rulebook also supports his having the right to use his judgement as to whether he thinks the call should be an intentional foul or not. You questioned the call after the game and he gave you his reasons for making the call. You still absolutely refuse to accept his judgement regarding that call, and you'd like us to agree with you. Unfortunately, I can't and won't-- because I didn't see the call and I personally think that that it's unprofessional as hell to dump on a fellow official's judgement without having seen the call or hearing his version of the call. That's jmo.

Does that pretty well sum up where we're at? We disagree, and we're just going in circles repeating ourselves. Time to just let 'er go, imo.

'crap in the game' = false double foul, false multiple foul, or having to 'reach' to validate a call that wasn't obvious


JR, I believe I corrected my own mistake concerning the dead ball foul. You replied to my post and didn't correct my mistake. You brought in the rule that deals with dead ball foul being an intentional foul, but you didn't catch my mistake either in interpreting the situation as it had been given.

All I'm trying to say is if you go on the court every night to officiate the game using the rule book without any common sense being applied, well... do I have to say more???

1)False double fouls are crap? False double fouls are common as hell in any game. One example is a player being fouled, and then responding by shoving his opponent. That's a personal foul followed by a technical foul---> equalling a false double foul. Any foul on a foul shot that's committed before the clock starts is a false double foul too. That's crap to make those calls? Do you really know what false double fouls are?

2) Btw, how do really you know how I go on the court every night to officiate? Have you see me? How do you know that I don't use common sense? The same way that you know a fellow official completely screwed up an intentional foul, even though you never saw the play or talked to that official? Do I have to say more???

As an official, I think that you'd make a great fan.

RollTide...
You said something earlier about not just going in the locker room after a game and back-slapping everyone...
I was about to sponsor you in, what one of my buddy's and ex veteran official use to affectionately call us, the "Mutual Admiration Society"! ;)

'crap in the game' = false double foul, false multiple foul, or having to 'reach' to validate a call that wasn't obvious

Fair enough for a pre-game...but, the part about not wanting to have to explain the "hard" stuff to a coach...I'm not buying.

I will be the R on a Regional Game tonight. In our pre-game tonight, I could go with your "crap in the game" stuff, but IMO I would sound weak to our fellow officials from another association if I say we don't want to have to explain the hard stuff to them. Again, JMO. :)

I can't recite every rule # throughout the rule book. In fact, I only made a 92 on the NF certification test (closed book part II). False Double Foul is one of the rules I'm very aware of though, bcause a few years ago (when I first moved up to the varsity ranks) I butchered a call where I misapplied this rule.

I doubt very seriously that I've ever seen you officiate a game. Same as I didn't see the play that David was explaining to us to start this thread.

Beings that I haven't seen you officiate a game, I'm going to hold my comments on the perception I have of the type of official I envision you being. I will say this much though, I bet the fans do have fun at your games, lol

...and I would say that's a pretty big ASSumption on your part, as you said yourself...you've never seen me officiate. ;)

Also, relax. From what I'm seeing of your philosophy's of the intentional foul, I would say I'm right there with ya.

It's just you have a very experienced official, i.e. JR, giving you not only accurate rules knowledge...but, his philosophy of how to treat a fellow official.
At least, that's how I'm reading this post.

Not looking for agreement!
 

I could care less about anyone agreeing with me. I was there and I saw the play - I know it was a bad call.

That's why we talked about it after the game. But I was looking on this board for some guys to give me some input as to this type of call.

You gave me some rule info and I see that "by rule" he could make this call.

Now you said
<b>"it's unprofessional as hell to dump on a fellow official's judgement"</b>

Then how is an official supposed to learn - if I make a bad call I sure need someone to point it out to me so that I don't make the same call again.

I'm sure you didn't learn how to officiate without someone telling you a few things that you might need to change - I have things I have to look at every time I go to camp and that's in front of a lot of coaches and players.

IMO that's why we have a board like this to ask questions.
And despite all of the talk about "questioning" and official, I did learn a few things from this thread.

I think Bob's post above said it best.

That's how it should be officiated IMO and my interpretation of the rules.

If we disagree that's fine, we can as you say go on to other things - i'm sure i'll have something tonight in my game.

Thanks
David