Just got back from being a clinician at a weekend ref camp. I know there have been some back-and-forth threads on here about whether or not officials should just keep calling the game "straight up" when one team has a huge lead and continues to press.

The guy running this camp does D2, D3 and gets either a semi or a state championship every time he goes to a boys state HS tourney. One of the most respected refs around. His assistant also does some D2 and is one of the elite HS refs in the state.

One of the games on Sat morning was a mis-match between two 4A boys teams. After the game, the camp director gets the three officials together and tells them that they should have been calling fouls on the better team once the game was no longer in doubt. His quote was, "if a team is up by 30 and still pressing, you call a foul if they even so much as breathe on their opponent. It's called game management." Some of the other clinicians (all good and well-respected refs) agreed. I remained completely silent and wondered what Jurassic would have said.

I now duck and watch the volleys begin. :D

Z

It's not that hard to justify, even to Jurassic. You use the language of advantage/disavantage. If Team A has been the state champions for the last 12 years and Team B is at the bottom of the league, and the score if 50 points separated by half-time (I've done a game or two like this), the logic runs like this:

Anything that Team A does gives them an advantage. That's because they're a lot better than Team B. So if what they are doing is illegal, it's an illegal advantage, and you have to call it. This doesn't mean that you're making anything up. It just means that with those borderline calls, you're calling stuff that you might not call in a game where the skill level is closer.

The real question is when Team B is in the double bonus, and they're not hitting their free throws, are you really doing them any favors?

I'm with the camp director. If a team is up by 30 and still pressing they better be seriously playing defense with their feet, keeping their hands way off, and be playing a clean enough game to pass a white glove test. There's a huge difference between winning a game and humiliating an opponent.

I'm not going to make stuff up but what I judge as incidental contact goes way down on the team leading big and pressing.

One, I think it's unsporting.

Two, if the losing team is clearly frustrated, tempers can easily flare, especially if the poor team's lack of ability leads to them fouling the better team a lot. If they perceive it's 7 or 8 on 5, it's the good team that will suffer. Calling a few cheap ones on the winning team can keep tempers in check.

If it is a running clock, the sooner we get to bonus the better!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

It's not that hard to justify, even to Jurassic. You use the language of advantage/disavantage. If Team A has been the state champions for the last 12 years and Team B is at the bottom of the league, and the score if 50 points separated by half-time (I've done a game or two like this), the logic runs like this: Anything that Team A does gives them an advantage. That's because they're a lot better than Team B. So if what they are doing is illegal, it's an illegal advantage, and you have to call it. This doesn't mean that you're making anything up. It just means that with those borderline calls, you're calling stuff that you might not call in a game where the skill level is closer. The real question is when Team B is in the double bonus, and they're not hitting their free throws, are you really doing them any favors?

In a post about "Game Management," Jurassic had called this practice unfair and favoritism. Others had agreed. Besides, the camp director wasn't talking about borderline calls. My personal philosophy is that you do "move the line" a little bit, but I'm not going to make anything up. I will tighten it up on team A though if B is getting humiliated but I'm not going to make it obvious to everyone in the gym.

Z

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker Quote: It's not that hard to justify, even to Jurassic. You use the language of advantage/disavantage. If Team A has been the state champions for the last 12 years and Team B is at the bottom of the league, and the score if 50 points separated by half-time (I've done a game or two like this), the logic runs like this: Anything that Team A does gives them an advantage. That's because they're a lot better than Team B. So if what they are doing is illegal, it's an illegal advantage, and you have to call it. This doesn't mean that you're making anything up. It just means that with those borderline calls, you're calling stuff that you might not call in a game where the skill level is closer. The real question is when Team B is in the double bonus, and they're not hitting their free throws, are you really doing them any favors? In a post about "Game Management," Jurassic had called this practice unfair and favoritism. Others had agreed. Besides, the camp director wasn't talking about borderline calls. My personal philosophy is that you do "move the line" a little bit, but I'm not going to make anything up. I will tighten it up on team A though if B is getting humiliated but I'm not going to make it obvious to everyone in the gym. Z

My understanding in that post was that Jurassic didn't always realize what others were talking about in terms of the seriousness of the contact. Also, there were a few who were advocating making things up, and also letting everything go on the other team. I thought he was responding more to those things than to "moving the line a little bit" as you so eloquently put it.

Juulie - don't you think this can be construed as penalizing team A for having superior skills? What happened to the theory of "if a foul is a foul at the beginning, it's a foul at the end - if it isn't, then it isn't"?

I have to say, you cannot make up calls to penalize the superior team. I have been told by some very well known D1 officials that game management is keeping the ball in the losing team hands by staying within the rules and do not make it seems as if you are favoring the losing team with what appears as made up calls.

That's just it, it's a theory. All theories sound great in abstract, but few hold up as well in practice.

I guess, part way through a game, none of us have ever conversed with our partner(s) and decided to "tighten" it up? I mean, we were not calling some of that a foul at the beginning of the game, but NOW the game dictates it needs to be one.

IMO...this is a correct statement from an experienced official.

IMO...an inexperienced official should stay away from these murky waters. Just call the game and the other game management skills will come later.

As the director said...its about "game management". A coach knows when an experienced official is getting a point across...a coach might not appreciate or understand the "point" the inexperienced (and often times inconsistent) official is trying to get across.

To sum it up...you better have some credability, as an official, when you use these "game management" techniques.

B.S. Pure and simple. Maybe he was exaggerating to make his point. But if you're going to call fouls b/c the pressing team plays tight defense, that's not game management.

I will agree with the people here who have said they will adjust their judgment on how much contact gives the defense an unfair advantage. A small handcheck may be a big advantage. But a double-team in the backcourt should not automatically mean that you call a foul on one of the defenders, simply b/c they're close enough to "breathe" on the ball handler.

What can happen if you start making "sympathy" calls is that the winning team gets frustrated and decides that if they're going to get called for fouls, then they're going to actually commit them. That's not a good situation, and you've ended up by "managing" your game into the toilet.

In the other thread, the thing that I disagreed with was NOT the opinion that we should tighten up on the winning team. What I disagreed with was the statement that we should refrain from putting the winning team on the line. Different issue for me.

It's not that hard to justify, even to Jurassic.

[/B][/QUOTE]Wrong.

Completely wrong.

What happened to the theory of "if a foul is a foul at the beginning, it's a foul at the end - if it isn't, then it isn't"? [/B][/QUOTE]It just went down the sh!tter along with the allied concepts of calling it both ways, calling it the same at either end, being fair, not injecting your own philosophies into the game, not favoring one team over another, etc., etc.

It just went down the sh!tter along with the allied concepts of calling it both ways, calling it the same at either end, being fair, not injecting your own philosophies into the game, not favoring one team over another, etc., etc.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Thank you, JR. In a rec league, I might say something to the coach of a team way up late who is still pressing, but that's about as far as I will take it.

If anyone really feels that a team doing this is unsportsmanlike, then call a technical for unsportsmanlike conduct. Since we all know this wouldn't fly, IMO (notice I never say IMHO ;) ) where is the logical extension of making calls a certain way in this circumstance because you think one team is acting in an unsportsmanlike manner?

In other words, the rulebook doesn't state this is unsportsmanlike play, so we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to make calls a certain way because we think so.

Perhaps the solution would be to add a rule that makes it a violation (or technical after a warning) if a team presses after they get a certain lead.

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

I only look at the threads with pictures in them.:D

Ok...for you dblref...

<IMG SRC=http://xo.typepad.com/blog/images/piercings.jpg>

Alright, let's get this back to basketball.

If this was a player that came out to start the game, and one of us had to send her back to the bench to remove her jewlery (!), what are the odds she would be finished removing them in time to play by the 4th quarter? Or, if this is rec league, do you allow her to put tape over them and let her play?

I'm not even asking about the ones we can't see... :eek:

Man, this board sure is slow...

From what I can see....I'll let YOU check those non visible items that cant be seen partner!

Please don't tell me you let rec league players play with jewelry taped over! What's the difference? Your liability is still the same.

If the sponsoring league has rules that permit jewelry, those rules apply. They've hired the official to work the game as they define it.

If the sponsoring league has rules that permit jewelry but they don't get every participant to sign a liability waiver, they're nuts.

Yep, that's one of many reasons why I try not to work rec leagues any more. There were a couple of leagues that were good about rules, but others went under the theory, "Hey, the players paid their money to play...so what if they said a couple of bad words to you."

So, when I made that comment, my (diamond-studded) tongue was planted firmly in my (titanium-studded) cheek.

And frankly, with a halfway good lawyer and a crying 12 year old girl whose face is now scratched six ways to Sunday, there's not a jury in this country who's going to care about a liability waiver.