I've heard this philosophy espoused many times, and I don't think that it implies you should make things up. I think it means that you should use your judgement with regard to advantage/disadvantage, and the effect it is having on the game. If, for example, the team in the lead has been pressing most of the game, and you have been letting some contact go, it may be time to call that contact. This is especially true if it is starting to affect the attitudes/actions of the team getting blown-out. I think it is similar to the game management technique you apply when teams are starting to get more physical with eachother, or starting to talk more-- all that contact that was ignored previously, now has to be called in order to get the players back under control.

Now, if a team is up by 30 points, pressing, and getting steals because the losing team is just throwing the ball away, there is nothing that can be done. I've seen games like that before. It isn't pretty, but you can't just make stuff up.

Also-- "a foul is a foul is a foul" will get you into a lot of trouble. Every foul occurs within a context. For example, let's say your crew has called two or three illegal screens in a game. . .now there are under ten seconds to play, there is a drive to the basket, and there is an illegal screen away from the ball. I dare say that you would call that screen, unless the offensive player ends up with the ball. In all of the lectures I have listend to from officials at the highest levels, I have never, ever heard any of them say that "a foul is a foul is a foul" or anything even approaching that philosophy. To the contrary, I've heard more than once, "you can have the same play at two different points in a game, call it two different ways, and be right both times."

Of course, variety is the spice of life, and without differing philosophies, we wouldn't have boards like this one!

Only in lower levels. I can't see this going beyond grammar school level. There is a mercy rule for running clock in the 4th, but as the levels progress, the players should be allowed to play. Again, as has been said many a time, 'game management' becomes critical at this point.

It was mentioned to me by a college official this weekend, while working a HS V shootout, that one philosophy used on the college level is that 'a foul is committed, it doesn't just happen.' Even blowout games have to be looked at in the same sense. While it is OK (IMO) to call a borderline call in favor of the losing team, don't get carried away with the thought of bending the game back into a favorable balance, because you are then giving an advantage to the losing team. Call it as straight up as you can. It isn't our jobs to have pity on a team for not being good enough, because they won't have the same pity on us.

Mark and JR - I actually with agree with everything you guys say. The same game needs to be called on both ends of the floor; at the begining and end of the game. Consistancy is important. I have heard "game management" be used as a term that means nothing more than, "manage to not call so much so we can get outta here earlier". That is totally inappropriate for what we have been hired to do.

However...(you felt it coming, right?)

Are there times you have had to make a call later in a game that perhaps you passed on earlier? Or, have you ever told a player, "keep moving" early in a game, but then called 3 seconds on them because they just aren't listening? Obviously, the amount of contact in a jr. high girls game that warrants a foul call will not be the same in a varsity boys game. We adjust all the time, whether it's from game-to-game or even within a game. We can always go through the "what-if's" of the team that's ahead getting frustrated, but I think most of us have been through the situation of the team that's behind getting frustrated as well. I think it's important for us to manage that frustration. Maybe it's just reassuring players when you get a chance that you appreciate their hustle even under these circumstances. Or, pointing out a good play when appropriate. It doesn't have to be changing the way we call the game in favor of the team that's behind. But, maybe, sometimes, in certain cases, it can be. I don't think it should be dismissed altogether. I am certainly afraid of the slippery-slope of that theory getting out of hand and becoming an excuse for lazy officiating. In one of the other threads I mentioned my ignoring an obvious lane violation on a team that was way behind in the last few minutes, and getting a thumbs-up from the clinician and the coach of the team that was way ahead. Sure, on one level it felt uncomfortable, but on the other hand it felt like the right thing to do at the time. And, to reassure JR, if the team that was ahead did the same violation, I would've ignored it as well, to make it even.

So, where's that line between good game management and favoritism? I sure don't know yet, but it seems like there is a line there somewhere. I guess that's part of our judgement; knowing the game, both on a overall level and on an individual basis. I sure wish there was a magical formula I could use to differentiate between management and favoritism. I'd be willing to pay a couple of bucks (or even a six-pack or two) to the person that has that magical formula written down.

Yeah, but I consider giving a warning that if you do it again it will be called and then later calling it is not inconsistent, as long as you do it for everyone.

M&M-

Favoritism (f)= Making a call or series of calls specifically for the purpose of benefitting ONE opponent, without regard for the other opponent, or to specifically hurt the other oponent.

Game Management (g)= Making a call or series of calls specifically for the purpose of benifiting the game and everyone involved; such calls are made upon either opponent, as the situation dictates.

(c)= Calls that are neither "game management" or "favoritism"

(t)= Terribly-officiated game

(w)= Well-officiated game

therefore: c+f = t ...but... c+g = w



Will that get me a six-pack? LOL

You're on the right track, but I can't pay out on that six-pack yet. ;)

What I'm looking for is "x", where c+x = g, but c+(x+1) = f. What is that constant that changes a "game management" call to a "favoritism"? I guess there are some that argue that g = f. I have a feeling the real answer looks like one of those chalkboards they used on the TV show, "Numbers". So, keep working and send me your chalkboard when you're done.

Oh, and as most teachers would say - show your work! :D

Once again, I don't really disagree. But, what if after warning A1 to get out of the lane, you have to call A1 for the violation, then a few plays later, a sub B6 is starting to spend too much time in there. Do you consider the warning for A a warning for both teams, and call the violation on B6, even though that player wasn't in the game during the first warning? Is that inconsistant because you gave a warning for A1, but called the violation immediately on B6? Or, is it inconsistant to call a violation on A, then a few plays later just warn B for the same thing? I guess my point is we make these types of decisions all the time, and it isn't always clear-cut, black and white, a foul-is-a-foul. Can you allow for the possibility that there may be some situations (albeit rare) where game management might involve something other than making the same calls every night, no matter what the game situation?

I know this is an agree to disagree thing. But I don't think my position is that far off-base. In the first five minutes, I almost always call more on both teams than I do by the end of the game. But I'm talking about moving the line an inch or two, not a yard, or even a foot. Near the end of a blow-out, the team that's ahead is getting a lot more advantage from their fouls than the team that's behind. So their contact is more likely to really be a foul. I'm not seeing ghosts, and I'm not making it up. If there's no contact, there's no foul. The dinkiest, rinky-dink contact still isn't a foul. But if A1 bumps the cutter a little, and it throws the cutter off her course, so that she can't catch the pass, however slight the bump, that contact is a foul, and needs to be called. The fact that any player from Teams C, D, E, F, and all the other teams in the league, could easily have played through that contact is immaterial to the situation. The contact was illegal and made B's play fail, so it's a foul. I don't see why that's favoring one team.

Of course, if you just call it all the time without issuing warnings (i.e. you do it the way the rulebook says) you won't have to make a philosophical decision here.
I don't necessarily make the same calls every night. I might have totally different levels from night to night. But I do make the same calls from start to finish within a game. At least - I try to.

Maybe the phrase "issuing warnings" isn't quite what I mean; I think it's more along the lines of the preventative officiating technique of talking to the players and saying things like, "keep moving", or "hands off". Of course there are no official warnings for being in the lane.
Once again, I don't really disagree. I actually strive to do that as well. But, I'm only going on what officials who are higher up the food chain, so to speak, have told me. Maybe this is a way to help manage the frustration that the obviously losing team is experiencing. If the losing team is just playing bad, we can't change that so we should continue to officiate as in the beginning of the game. But, if we can do something to keep frustration fouls or fights from breaking out, shouldn't we do that as well? There are many options available to us; it appears that tightening up on the team that's ahead and pressing could be one of those options.

I'm just not smart enough yet to know when to do these things. Maybe that comes with experience. I just wish I could find some more concrete guidelines so I wouldn't have to think as much. Besides, my head hurts when I think too much, and my hair starts to turn blonde... ;)

similarly
 

couple years ago i had a game at half time the score was like 40-2 or something similar -- 12yr old girls. In my infinite wisdom I felt really bad for the team getting pounded on so i took the score off the scoreboard and just had the scorer keep it on paper -- the winning coach got mad even after I explained I just wanted to take the score off the board as it was clear his team had one and I just hoped it would help the other team not feel as defeated. Well this coach became a super *** after this and started pressing even harder and running harder. Well i think they won by like 300 points.

Then next day I got to ref the same team and the coach was all smug and started the game on the wrong side of me with a wise *** comment about the previous day -- I laughed and wished him good luck. At half time his team was down by about 20 as the other team was pressing the crap out of them -- and as i was walking over to the table i said something along the line of "watch out for their full court press its a doozy" -- well he had some choice words for me and I didnt T him up but I got a good laugh as well as the others that heard me since they all knew of what an *** he was. I think the other team eased off a bit in the second half and they only beat them by about 30.

Moral of the story -- medium sized fish that think they are tough by beating up on small fish will eventually get smacked around by the big fish.

In retrospect I think i was right in what i did -- even though the arguments against what i did in teh first place are sound -- and I am just glad that I got to see some sweet revenge.

Re: similarly
 

So you made up a new rule, that backfired on the team you were trying to make feel better.

You then make a remark that was very unprofessional, and act like you did the coach a favor by not T'ing him up.

Yep, you did the right thing.:rolleyes:

Re: similarly
 

His team had one what?

;)

M&M Guy ...."and my hair starts to turn blonde."...

As a blonde, all I can say is you should all be so lucky.:D

So, how do you read these threads with all that white-out on your computer screen?

:D