Game management -- finally got it?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by mick

Z,
I generally find myself officiating both ends to the level of the better team.
I feel no need to reward poor coaches or weak, unskilled players.
mick

Early in my career I had the "honor" of reffing a 5th grade girls league championship game. The coach of one team was adamant that he wanted me to call it very tight. When I asked him why, he told me that that is the only way his girls could compete with the other team.

If we call the game differently just because one team is weaker, we may end up changing the game, and possibly the outcome. Normally the stronger team should win. And we shouldn't be in the business of evening things out or helping one team out, not even accidentally with good intentions.

Just my $0.02.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Early in my career I had the "honor" of reffing a 5th grade girls league championship game. The coach of one team was adamant that he wanted me to call it very tight. When I asked him why, he told me that that is the only way his girls could compete with the other team.

If we call the game differently just because one team is weaker, we may end up changing the game, and possibly the outcome. Normally the stronger team should win. And we shouldn't be in the business of evening things out or helping one team out, not even accidentally with good intentions.

Just my $0.02.

Note in my previous post that I mentioned "a blowout game." I'm talking about games where the outcome is already decided.

Z

[mick]

Originally posted by zebraman

Note in my previous post that I mentioned "a blowout game." I'm talking about games where the outcome is already decided.

Z

Me, too, Z.
Coaches and players may quit anytime they want.
I am not allowed to do that, so I keep on keeping on.

If the losing team's little used sub fouls the winning team's little used sub, I make that call, or the subs are being treated differently eventhough I am still being paid.
mick

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by mick
If the losing team's little used sub fouls the winning team's little used sub, I make that call, or the subs are being treated differently eventhough I am still being paid.

This was my point earlier. The scrubs who only play during blow-outs deserve the same officiating as the starters. It's their only time to play, so who am I to withhold my whistle and deprive them of their deserved FTs? Again, JMO.

[canuckrefguy]

I don't know that you should be so cut-and-dried with this philosophy.

If A is thrashing B by 40 points, and there's still 12:00 left in the game, am I going to pass on a few mild/moderate Team B fouls? You bet. That doesn't mean Team B gets a free pass, gets every call, or that we stop officiating and let the game get out of control.

Every evaluator and teacher I've had, which includes a few NCAA and NBA folks from the U.S., echoed the need to "manage" game situations like this. Keep the game moving. Don't stop refereeing, but keep the flow going. Of course, this is always paired with the idea that if it's a particularly rough game, you clamp down and so be it.

Some will pipe up in outrage over this philosophy, with the ole' line about reffing the same, consistently, and not "favouring" one team over the other. Hogwash. Unless you can tell me you officiate to the absolute letter of the rulebook from start to finish, your argument holds not water. We use judgement all the time on which calls to nail and which ones to pass on. This is not some grand breach of impartiality or ethics - it's trying to administer in the best spirit of the game.

It may be different where you're from - but where I'm from, officials who don't use this philosophy (a) never go anywhere, and (b) are viewed as having terrible game management. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
I don't know that you should be so cut-and-dried with this philosophy.

If A is thrashing B by 40 points, and there's still 12:00 left in the game, am I going to pass on a few mild/moderate Team B fouls? You bet. That doesn't mean Team B gets a free pass, gets every call, or that we stop officiating and let the game get out of control.

Every evaluator and teacher I've had, which includes a few NCAA and NBA folks from the U.S., echoed the need to "manage" game situations like this. Keep the game moving. Don't stop refereeing, but keep the flow going. Of course, this is always paired with the idea that if it's a particularly rough game, you clamp down and so be it.

Some will pipe up in outrage over this philosophy, with the ole' line about reffing the same, consistently, and not "favouring" one team over the other. Hogwash. Unless you can tell me you officiate to the absolute letter of the rulebook from start to finish, your argument holds not water. We use judgement all the time on which calls to nail and which ones to pass on. This is not some grand breach of impartiality or ethics - it's trying to administer in the best spirit of the game.

It may be different where you're from - but where I'm from, officials who don't use this philosophy (a) never go anywhere, and (b) are viewed as having terrible game management. Fair or not, that's the way it is.

Outrage coming up.

There's where you're wrong imo. You're advocating one thing and then doing something completely different in practise. There's no problem with loosening up and keeping the game moving, the flow going, etc. However, you are advocating loosening up at one end of the court only. That's favoritism and it's wrong. No, I don't referee to the letter of the rulebook in blowout situations, but the loosening up that I do does NOT favor one team over another.

Where I'm from, what you recommend doing is viewed as terrible game management. There's too much chance of the team that you aren't favoring getting frustrated and thus reacting negatively.

I disagree completely with your philosophy of favoritism.

[canuckrefguy]

That's the best outrage you got?

Perhaps I should have clarified that the philosophy, in this scenario, also includes passing on some fouls by the winning team. I think that's the reason I don't look at it as favouritism.

Not once, in these situations, have I ever run into a coach or player who, realizing the score was horrifically lopsided, had a problem with me or my partner passing on calls here and there. Perhaps a bit of a raised eyebrow by the odd coach - but after brief discussion, they're fine.

I find that coaches/players in these situations - where their can of whoop-*** is spilling out all over the place - just want the game under control, and aren't concerned with us passing on a few to keep the clock moving.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by mick

Me, too, Z.
Coaches and players may quit anytime they want.
I am not allowed to do that, so I keep on keeping on.

If the losing team's little used sub fouls the winning team's little used sub, I make that call, or the subs are being treated differently eventhough I am still being paid.
mick


Like I said in an earlier post, do whatever works for you. I may manage the game a little bit when one team is getting humiliated. I even did it in a blowout state tournament game once and got nothing but high praise from all the evaulators for "having great feel for the game." Do what works for you.

Z

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
That's the best outrage you got?

Perhaps I should have clarified that the philosophy, in this scenario, also includes passing on some fouls by the winning team. I think that's the reason I don't look at it as favouritism.

Again, I'm outraged. Mainly because the freaking Yankees are still playing like a freaking high school team. $200 million bunch of #$%$#@$^&#&!!!

Anyway........

Above is exactly where we disagree. I think that passing on some fouls committed by the winning team is the same as favoring the losing team. I'm a consistency freak, and when you deliberately call it differently at one end, your consistency just goes down the ol' dumper. That's why I'm agin it.

If it works for you though, fine. I do think that it ain't as simplistic as we're both making it anyway. A good official imo is constantly adjusting to different games situations as they come up- blowout or not.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
Some will pipe up in outrage over this philosophy, with the ole' line about reffing the same, consistently, and not "favouring" one team over the other.

No outrage here. The only thing I object to is this:

Posted by Chris
you can manage the game by putting the losing team on the line and passing on fouls that might put the winning team on the line.

I think it's unfair to the scrubs on the winning team to intentionally fail to call shooting fouls. That's all. They deserve their PPG just as much as the starters. I think any NBA observer will tell you the same thing, especially since those guys get paid partly based on their PPG.

[SMEngmann]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy
That's the best outrage you got?

Perhaps I should have clarified that the philosophy, in this scenario, also includes passing on some fouls by the winning team. I think that's the reason I don't look at it as favouritism.

Not once, in these situations, have I ever run into a coach or player who, realizing the score was horrifically lopsided, had a problem with me or my partner passing on calls here and there. Perhaps a bit of a raised eyebrow by the odd coach - but after brief discussion, they're fine.

I find that coaches/players in these situations - where their can of whoop-*** is spilling out all over the place - just want the game under control, and aren't concerned with us passing on a few to keep the clock moving.

Keeping the clock moving is a good thing, which is glad my state has adopted the mercy rule, which keeps the clock running in the 4th in such games. Since this post deals with game management, I think we need to recognize that there are different types of games. Blowouts are games when we as officials need to be on guard to prevent the garbage, non basketball type stuff from happening, because these are the games when that crap happens. I think in some cases, a philosophy of loosening up is dead wrong because it simply can lead to more frustration and more physical play. We must identify and act to prevent the roots of frustration that can lead to an act that ruins the game. Sometimes that might mean giving the losing team the benefit of the doubt on a marginal foul call, but I don't think that ignoring fouls that should be called does much to help the game, because doing so will lead to escalation. What I do agree on, though, is that we should be a bit more reluctant to call game interrupting, annoying violations such as 3 seconds in games like this to maintain a flow.

[M&M Guy]

I just got back from camp this weekend, and I don't have any energy for outrage. But I do believe we can "adjust" our judgement sometimes based on the game situation. For example, contact in a grade school girls game that would be a foul might not be a foul in a college game. We adjust our calls based on the situation. Can't we also make those same adjustments within a single game as well?

Let me give you an example. I was at a camp that featured high school girls teams from around the state. One of the teams was from a school for the deaf. Their talent level was very low, and they got beat almost every game by at least 40 points. But they never stopped trying. They always hustled, dove for loose balls, and never complained much, even though you could see their frustration on not being close to the same level. Late in one game (I think the third time I had them), one of their girls was on the line for 2 free throws. They were down by about 40. This girl shot the first free throw, tripped over the line while the ball was in the air, and it when in. Clearly a violation. But I didn't call it. I thought the clinician (a former D-1 offical and assignor) was going to get all over my butt about losing my concentration, etc. But he just happened to be next to me during my no-call, and asked if I had seen the girl go over the line. I said yes, but there was no advantage at this point in the game, so I let it go. He said that was exactly what he would do in that situation as well, and gave me an "atta-boy" for not calling it and taking that point away. That clearly favored that team over the other. I clearly ignored a rule. But I still got that "atta-boy", from both the clinician and the coach of the team that the call went against. Do I plan on doing that in any regular season game? Probably not. But maybe there are little game-management things that can be done during isolated instances that actually keep things under control. But, the key is knowing when to use them. I'm not sure I have a handle on that, but I at least guessed right in this case.