I had an interesting experience last week that has made me think that maybe I'm starting to get the whole game management thing.

JV boys game, controlled blowout, about 2 minutes left. We have a 1-and-1. Kid misses the first shot, foul on the rebound. Another 1-and-1. Kid misses the first shot, foul on the rebound. Happens again. Happens yet again, only this time we march to the other end to shoot.

Tired of this mess, I step in to admin the free throw and say "Guys, let's go in straight up and see if we can just get out of this, okay?" Well this time the kid bails us out and makes both free throws.

So we throw it in and we're headed the other way then we have a foul out top (I won't call it a reaching foul :P). I whistle it up and fouler looks up at me sheepishly and says, "Sorry, Ref."

I just had to chuckle.

Of course I didn't see what you saw but when you have 4 rebounding fouls I think you either clean it up before that or have a more patient whistle (advantage/disadvantage) and let them play it out. JV boys can play thru a fair amount of contact. JMO and again, I didn't see what you saw.

Usually in a "blow out", 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. This keeps the losing team from feeling like it's 5 vs 7, but still don't allow the team that is down to swing away on fouls.

You know, I used to feel that way. But now, I really feel that it's better to simply continue calling the game you've called all night. The scrubs from the winning team deserve their FTs just as much as the starters did. They can't help the fact that they only get PT when the game is out of hand.

If the losing team takes exception and does something over-the-top, then deal with it and penalize appropriately. But don't stop blowing the whistle just b/c it's a lopsided game.

JMO.

Another point of view. Let's look at it from the team that is getting blown out.

I also submit that the team getting beat is not really wanting to have the game prolonged a great deal by giving them the benefit of the doubt on lessor contact fouls. So to a point it is alright to modify call selection, but also let's not have a parade to FT line so they can feel a like the ref's weren't beating them too.

The fact is that both coaches are likely to understand what is happening, but at the same time they both want the game to end. Winning coach wants to rest their stars, and leave without injury. Losing team wants to put it behind and get ready for the next one. No one likes being on the end of a blowout, so why prolong the result/game.

[Edited by icallfouls on Jun 23rd, 2005 at 07:01 PM]

Every game is different. You cannot take a blanket philosophy like this and expect it will always apply. I think the best thing anyone can do is to just call their game and the players will adjust. A couple of fouls here or there are not going to make that much of a difference. Some blowout games need an even quicker whistle than others. Some scrubs are better than other scrubs.

Peace

Usually in a "blow out", 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.
[/B][/QUOTE]That's just wrong. And sureashell not very fair either.Why penalize a team for being better than their opponent?

Call it consistently and call it the same at both ends.

We're not supposed to favor one team over another--which basically is what you are recommending above.

I think it depends on the game. If you've got a blowout and a team is getting visibly frustrated, I don't think it hurts to give them the benefit of the doubt on some calls that really don't have any bearing on the outcome of the game, especially if doing so helps ease the tension and better manage the game. I'm not talking about hunting for stuff, just maybe if you have a minor bump on a shot or something that you could pass on, and probably would in a tight game, it may be better for the game to make that call. I think the best way of putting it is quality of calls, calls that take into account the situation in the game.

That's just wrong. And sureashell not very fair either.Why penalize a team for being better than their opponent?

Call it consistently and call it the same at both ends.

We're not supposed to favor one team over another--which basically is what you are recommending above. [/B][/QUOTE]

There's really no reason to read farther that what I typed. I'm not talking about favoring a team by looking for crap that ain't there and I'm sureashell not going to have 4 rebounding fouls on a freethrow. All I'm saying is to bite your whistle and see the whole play and keep the clock running. If you need to call a foul, just keep in mind what the score is. It's not that hard. :)

<b> I agree Chris. I think people read more into it than what you wrote. It's about having a patient whistle (as we always should) and calling what needs to be called in each game (as we always should).
</b>

Z

Since we should always be doing those things, why mention them in regard to a blow-out? I don't really think that's what he was saying. Look at the part I quoted in my previous post. Put the losing team on the line, but pass on fouls that would put the winning team on the line. He was saying don't miss anything on the team that's winning, but let the team that's losing slide a little. I disagree with that at this point in my career.

In every game we ref, we adjust our calls to the ability level of the teams. A poor team may be affected by slight contact that a good team might be able to play through. If we call a foul for slight contact against the good team, we might be taking a hoop away from them. In a blowout game with two teams of differing abilities, I can understand letting a little more contact go on one end than the other if it isn't affecting the play. Now we still need to manage the game (and the frustration level), but I think there are some games where it is appropriate to slide that line of what "is and isn't a foul" a little bit. Just my opinion and it works for me.... I don't have a problem with an official that continues to call it straight up either.

Z

Well Chuck, I don't really have a problem with what you're saying but I suppose we can agree that we don't completely agree. ?? :) :)

[/B][/QUOTE]That's just wrong. And sureashell not very fair either.Why penalize a team for being better than their opponent?

Call it consistently and call it the same at both ends.

We're not supposed to favor one team over another--which basically is what you are recommending above. [/B][/QUOTE]

Unless of course your assignor/evaluator is there and yelling at you after the game that you should have passed on those, or put the losing team on the line.

Not that it ever happened to me, Wednesday night. Not that I took exception to being yelled at for calling a legitimate foul.

Oh well, live an learn.

It was late in the game, the losing team was frustrated, and they were all "had to get," obvious fouls.

Even though I sympathize with the notion of being more willing to pass on contact against the winning time in a blowout, I'm pretty much with Chuck. Sometimes you introduce an inadvertent side-effect of letting the losing team back into the game. Sometimes you introduce an inadvertent side-effect of letting the winning team get frustrated because they're not getting the calls they should get. Once the scrubs get into the game, especially if they're subbing in wholesale, it's a new game anyway and you need to be taking care of business.

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.

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

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.

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.:D

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 <b>NOT</b> 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 <b>aren't</b> favoring getting frustrated and thus reacting negatively.

I disagree completely with your philosophy of favoritism.

That's the best outrage you got? :D

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.

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
<b>

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.