The Official Forum - Oh I'm upset

Page 4 of 4

« First

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Oh I'm upset (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/24944-oh-im-upset.html)

BktBallRef

Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:07am

Quote:

Originally posted by TussAgee11
Problem with officials.

That statement tells me all I need to know. You aren't an official. Yeah, you may play one during intramural games but that's it.

Go away fanboy.

Jurassic Referee

Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:28am

Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii
Maybe saying something wasn't right, but there is a very pervasive attitude in basketball officiating that I do not see in soccer or swimming, which I do both, that regardless of what kind of call or no-call is made, it HAS to be right because you can never question the judgement of another official. Whether it was completely a judgement call, or completely wrong based on the rules (simply by asking the official afterwards what he based the call on), there is an attitude that it cannot be wrong.

You're completely missing the point of this particular thread, David. No one is saying that you shouldn't ever question the judgement of another official. What is being said is that any judging being done should not be done in public with non-officials being present and being able to see and hear what you're saying. Officials criticize each other all the time. Case in point and a great example-- this forum. If it's done properly, face-to-face and kept between us gals, it's a great learning experience. If it's done while sitting in the stands, as TussAgee did, it's unprofessional as hell and shows a complete lack of integrity.

And, in my experience, a good official will readily admit it if they screw up a call. They usually appreciate the in-put too. The idea is to constantly strive to improve, and one of the ways to do that is learning from your mistakes. We all do make mistakes. Most of us realize that. Non-officials and avid fans usually don't.

SeanFitzRef

Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:59am

Re: Sympathetic

As a person, I am one of the biggest basketball fans in the world. I go to games all over the Chicago area to watch good HS, college, and pro (now that the Bulls are at least trying to field competitive teams). B

ut as an official (which I am now known), I have to watch the games in silence, only cheering good plays or remarking on bad coaching moves and the lack of solid fundamentals. When I observe something of note, I make a mental note to ask the question later. How can any official question another's judgement? Judgement is just that, making several decisions in a split second. Soccer isn't like this. swimming isn't like this. Football, baseball, etc. The only sport that comes close is hockey.

As a basketball official, you, DRinkeII, should know that every call you make or don't make can be called into question. I agree that mechanics, court location, signals, ball hawking are all things that can be addressed without question. But judgement on a blarge in live action??? Calling or no-calling a borderline travel?? If you have a rooting interest, there is no way that you can see this objectively. Let the officials on the court handle their game, and give solid, constructive criticism during half-time, after the game, or in meetings. But take it the same way you give it.

Back In The Saddle

Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:24pm

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
There is a world of difference between mindlessly assuming the official on the floor is always right and understanding that your behavior as an official is always being observed and choosing not to act in ways that berate other officials publicly. I disagree with officials on the floor quite often, in rec., HS and college games. In any game I watch I'm critical of calls that are made. It's part of learning by observing others. But I calmly continue watching the game without indicating what I think.

I have also learned over the years that if I talk to the refs about specific situations, they'll often enlighten me as to something I missed in my observations. After all, they're 6 feet from the call and I'm 60 feet. They have an angle, I have a seat in the stands. Sometimes they'll tell me that they passed on that call for a very valid reason, and I have an opportunity to learn more about officiating philosophy from officials who are better than me. And yes, occassionally they'll admit that they kicked it or weren't in position to see it.

No, we're not perfect. Yes, most of us are trying to get better. No, it's not a secret society where we're expected to uphold each other no matter how dirty the deed. Yes, we are expected to hold our tounges when a commrade screws the pooch. No, that's not at all unreasonable. Yes, it is professional behavior.

And drinkeii, maybe it's time you set the rulebook aside and became more a student of the philosophy of the game. While it is important to thoroughly understand the rules of the game, it's more important to understand how to (and when not to) apply them. The rules exist to serve the game, not the other way around.

As I have always said - you can't play a game without rules. You can't have a game without rules. The rules are there to serve the game, but you can't play the game without them. And in basketball, there is way too much leeway (in my opinion) in how those rules are "interpreted", or calls are "passed on", even though it was a clear case of a rule being violated.

When you have a team down by 30-40, and someone on the lower team travels, and it is a minor thing, yes - i would consider that something to pass on. But in my opinion, when players do what they are supposed to do, according to the rules, and they are penalized for it, that is a problem - because the officials are more concerned with game flow than administering the rules. This leads to the current situation where players and coaches don't know the rules, and those that do, don't have any kind of advantage because the refs make a conscious decision to favor "the spirit of the game" over the actual rules which govern it.

How would olympic sports be if they decided that the officials for sports could just do whatever they felt would make a better game, instead of actually following the rules as written?

We see what this did to the NBA - in general, the game is run as "What makes a good show for the fans?" rather than actually having rules that are followed consistently. Travels happen all the time - but since they're followed by flashy plays, they get ignored, teaching younger kids that that kind of behavior is acceptable.

Again, more venting...

First of all, different sports are officiated differently. But as far as Olympic basketball, I'm sure you'll find the same (or greater) consideration of advantage/disadvantage, the same (or greater) reluctance to T coaches when they could be handled without the T and the same (or greater) disdane for calling three seconds needlessly.

Look, I don't mean to pee on your parade. But when your stated examples of officials general disregard for the rules are not automatically T'ing assistant coaches for standing, not calling three seconds, and the seemingly lax enforcement of traveling in the NBA, that sets off all kinds of red flags.

Rich	Wed Feb 15, 2006 01:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

One major problem with this sport is the range of what is acceptable for calls when compared to the rules. Many officials choose not to call specific things because they disagree with the rules, or choose to ignore things in favor of game flow. I tend to be a very rules-oriented person, but there are people who very clearly, through their statements, choose not to call things because they disagree with the rule.

The only part in that I want to respond to is above. Forgive me if I over-snipped.

Game flow is an important part of what we do. My personal pet peeve involves marginal traveling calls or marginal fouls called that interrupt games. We are there to facilitate the game; we aren't gun-slingers out to nail every little thing we think might violate a particular rule.

I've seen a TON of this in subvarsity contests this season. Foul after foul after foul on contact that causes NO disadvantage at all. Travels called on ugly plays that clearly, by rule, aren't traveling violations. Ugh.

drinkeii

Wed Feb 15, 2006 03:02pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

One major problem with this sport is the range of what is acceptable for calls when compared to the rules. Many officials choose not to call specific things because they disagree with the rules, or choose to ignore things in favor of game flow. I tend to be a very rules-oriented person, but there are people who very clearly, through their statements, choose not to call things because they disagree with the rule.

The only part in that I want to respond to is above. Forgive me if I over-snipped.

Game flow is an important part of what we do. My personal pet peeve involves marginal traveling calls or marginal fouls called that interrupt games. We are there to facilitate the game; we aren't gun-slingers out to nail every little thing we think might violate a particular rule.

I've seen a TON of this in subvarsity contests this season. Foul after foul after foul on contact that causes NO disadvantage at all. Travels called on ugly plays that clearly, by rule, aren't traveling violations. Ugh.

But in this case, you are stating that it is "ugly, but not a travel" - so therefore, there shoulnd't be a call - and this I agree with. And I understand, to a certain extent, advantage/disadvantage. But when you think about it, isn't it always to the fouled team's advantage to call a foul, because that puts them closer to the bonus, and that opponent closer to being out of the game? I mean, that is a more global (and less considered) advantage/disadvantage argument... and not commonly accepted as a reasonable interpretation - but isn't it one way to look at those fouls?

Besides... in Basketball, advantage/disadvantage is listed in the rules as a consideration. In soccer, it is actually part of the rules and required to be considered. In basketball, there is no clear statement in there that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage. It does explain that somewhat - but nothing like soccer, where the rules say you must pass on calling a foul where there is an advantage to allow the fouled player to keep playing.

Rich	Wed Feb 15, 2006 03:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

One major problem with this sport is the range of what is acceptable for calls when compared to the rules. Many officials choose not to call specific things because they disagree with the rules, or choose to ignore things in favor of game flow. I tend to be a very rules-oriented person, but there are people who very clearly, through their statements, choose not to call things because they disagree with the rule.

The only part in that I want to respond to is above. Forgive me if I over-snipped.

Game flow is an important part of what we do. My personal pet peeve involves marginal traveling calls or marginal fouls called that interrupt games. We are there to facilitate the game; we aren't gun-slingers out to nail every little thing we think might violate a particular rule.

I've seen a TON of this in subvarsity contests this season. Foul after foul after foul on contact that causes NO disadvantage at all. Travels called on ugly plays that clearly, by rule, aren't traveling violations. Ugh.

But in this case, you are stating that it is "ugly, but not a travel" - so therefore, there shoulnd't be a call - and this I agree with. And I understand, to a certain extent, advantage/disadvantage. But when you think about it, isn't it always to the fouled team's advantage to call a foul, because that puts them closer to the bonus, and that opponent closer to being out of the game? I mean, that is a more global (and less considered) advantage/disadvantage argument... and not commonly accepted as a reasonable interpretation - but isn't it one way to look at those fouls?

Besides... in Basketball, advantage/disadvantage is listed in the rules as a consideration. In soccer, it is actually part of the rules and required to be considered. In basketball, there is no clear statement in there that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage. It does explain that somewhat - but nothing like soccer, where the rules say you must pass on calling a foul where there is an advantage to allow the fouled player to keep playing.

Advantage/disadvantage is not considered from an administrative standpoint. To me and to all the other varsity/college officials I work with, advantage/disadvantage means we don't stop the game on contact unless it's excessive or if, in our judgment the person (or sometimes the team) contacted is disadvantaged. We don't care about the bonus or the number of fouls on a player.

Coming to grips with this is what takes most officials from the subvarsity level to the varsity level. I've lived in 6 states and things are pretty much the same everywhere I've officiated.

The one thing I've read above that I think is completely incorrect is your quote: "that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage". If there is no disadvantage or if the contact isn't excessive, there's no foul. There can be contact without a foul. That is in the rulebook.

drinkeii

Wed Feb 15, 2006 07:16pm

Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by SeanFitzRef
As a person, I am one of the biggest basketball fans in the world. I go to games all over the Chicago area to watch good HS, college, and pro (now that the Bulls are at least trying to field competitive teams). B

ut as an official (which I am now known), I have to watch the games in silence, only cheering good plays or remarking on bad coaching moves and the lack of solid fundamentals. When I observe something of note, I make a mental note to ask the question later. How can any official question another's judgement? Judgement is just that, making several decisions in a split second. Soccer isn't like this. swimming isn't like this. Football, baseball, etc. The only sport that comes close is hockey.

As a basketball official, you, DRinkeII, should know that every call you make or don't make can be called into question. I agree that mechanics, court location, signals, ball hawking are all things that can be addressed without question. But judgement on a blarge in live action??? Calling or no-calling a borderline travel?? If you have a rooting interest, there is no way that you can see this objectively. Let the officials on the court handle their game, and give solid, constructive criticism during half-time, after the game, or in meetings. But take it the same way you give it.

I have never had any problem accepting criticism - except from those who will not accept it themselves (I've never agreed with hypocrits). I am very willing to have things pointed out - and I always tell my partner that if he sees something that means I completely kicked a call, come over and correct me... i'd rather get the call right than choose to not correct it because I don't want to look bad - i think i look worse if I mess up and no one fixes it.

drinkeii

Wed Feb 15, 2006 07:21pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

One major problem with this sport is the range of what is acceptable for calls when compared to the rules. Many officials choose not to call specific things because they disagree with the rules, or choose to ignore things in favor of game flow. I tend to be a very rules-oriented person, but there are people who very clearly, through their statements, choose not to call things because they disagree with the rule.

The only part in that I want to respond to is above. Forgive me if I over-snipped.

Game flow is an important part of what we do. My personal pet peeve involves marginal traveling calls or marginal fouls called that interrupt games. We are there to facilitate the game; we aren't gun-slingers out to nail every little thing we think might violate a particular rule.

I've seen a TON of this in subvarsity contests this season. Foul after foul after foul on contact that causes NO disadvantage at all. Travels called on ugly plays that clearly, by rule, aren't traveling violations. Ugh.

But in this case, you are stating that it is "ugly, but not a travel" - so therefore, there shoulnd't be a call - and this I agree with. And I understand, to a certain extent, advantage/disadvantage. But when you think about it, isn't it always to the fouled team's advantage to call a foul, because that puts them closer to the bonus, and that opponent closer to being out of the game? I mean, that is a more global (and less considered) advantage/disadvantage argument... and not commonly accepted as a reasonable interpretation - but isn't it one way to look at those fouls?

Besides... in Basketball, advantage/disadvantage is listed in the rules as a consideration. In soccer, it is actually part of the rules and required to be considered. In basketball, there is no clear statement in there that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage. It does explain that somewhat - but nothing like soccer, where the rules say you must pass on calling a foul where there is an advantage to allow the fouled player to keep playing.

Advantage/disadvantage is not considered from an administrative standpoint. To me and to all the other varsity/college officials I work with, advantage/disadvantage means we don't stop the game on contact unless it's excessive or if, in our judgment the person (or sometimes the team) contacted is disadvantaged. We don't care about the bonus or the number of fouls on a player.

Coming to grips with this is what takes most officials from the subvarsity level to the varsity level. I've lived in 6 states and things are pretty much the same everywhere I've officiated.

The one thing I've read above that I think is completely incorrect is your quote: "that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage". If there is no disadvantage or if the contact isn't excessive, there's no foul. There can be contact without a foul. That is in the rulebook.

I agree with that. But then when you get someone slapping another player loudly, that everyone in the place hears, and you pass on it, you look like a bad official. I'm talking about the kind of slap where there is absolutely no effect on the play, but it just sounds really bad. Most officials call that, at least most that I have seen, even if there is no disadvantage to the slapped player.

I do have to say that it seems that most officials DO consider the concept of "how many fouls a player has" in their decisions to call fouls... i have always been told, and see it in action all the time - if you have a player with 3 fouls, or very much so if they have 4, make sure when you call something on them, it is a clear foul and not a cheap one. I have never agreed with this. The rules and interpretations state clearly that if it is a foul at the beginning of the game, it is at the end, and everywhere else in between. Same with positioning - a foul at one end, in the middle, in the paint, or by the sideline, is the same. It's easier to see things outside the paint, because of a lack of a crowd, but that you are supposed to call things the same throughout.

drinkeii

Wed Feb 15, 2006 07:27pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
There is a world of difference between mindlessly assuming the official on the floor is always right and understanding that your behavior as an official is always being observed and choosing not to act in ways that berate other officials publicly. I disagree with officials on the floor quite often, in rec., HS and college games. In any game I watch I'm critical of calls that are made. It's part of learning by observing others. But I calmly continue watching the game without indicating what I think.

I have also learned over the years that if I talk to the refs about specific situations, they'll often enlighten me as to something I missed in my observations. After all, they're 6 feet from the call and I'm 60 feet. They have an angle, I have a seat in the stands. Sometimes they'll tell me that they passed on that call for a very valid reason, and I have an opportunity to learn more about officiating philosophy from officials who are better than me. And yes, occassionally they'll admit that they kicked it or weren't in position to see it.

No, we're not perfect. Yes, most of us are trying to get better. No, it's not a secret society where we're expected to uphold each other no matter how dirty the deed. Yes, we are expected to hold our tounges when a commrade screws the pooch. No, that's not at all unreasonable. Yes, it is professional behavior.

And drinkeii, maybe it's time you set the rulebook aside and became more a student of the philosophy of the game. While it is important to thoroughly understand the rules of the game, it's more important to understand how to (and when not to) apply them. The rules exist to serve the game, not the other way around.

As I have always said - you can't play a game without rules. You can't have a game without rules. The rules are there to serve the game, but you can't play the game without them. And in basketball, there is way too much leeway (in my opinion) in how those rules are "interpreted", or calls are "passed on", even though it was a clear case of a rule being violated.

When you have a team down by 30-40, and someone on the lower team travels, and it is a minor thing, yes - i would consider that something to pass on. But in my opinion, when players do what they are supposed to do, according to the rules, and they are penalized for it, that is a problem - because the officials are more concerned with game flow than administering the rules. This leads to the current situation where players and coaches don't know the rules, and those that do, don't have any kind of advantage because the refs make a conscious decision to favor "the spirit of the game" over the actual rules which govern it.

How would olympic sports be if they decided that the officials for sports could just do whatever they felt would make a better game, instead of actually following the rules as written?

We see what this did to the NBA - in general, the game is run as "What makes a good show for the fans?" rather than actually having rules that are followed consistently. Travels happen all the time - but since they're followed by flashy plays, they get ignored, teaching younger kids that that kind of behavior is acceptable.

Again, more venting...

First of all, different sports are officiated differently. But as far as Olympic basketball, I'm sure you'll find the same (or greater) consideration of advantage/disadvantage, the same (or greater) reluctance to T coaches when they could be handled without the T and the same (or greater) disdane for calling three seconds needlessly.

Look, I don't mean to pee on your parade. But when your stated examples of officials general disregard for the rules are not automatically T'ing assistant coaches for standing, not calling three seconds, and the seemingly lax enforcement of traveling in the NBA, that sets off all kinds of red flags.

And what kind of red flags are those? Are you saying that these situations, which the rules specifically state are to be enforced, are not? And I don't mean seemingly lax... if you watch, many of the players take a full 2 1/2 to 3 steps (not jump-stopping...) on their way to the hoop, with no travel call. The NBA doesn't allow any more steps than any other level of basketball for traveling. It just doesn't make a good game for people to watch... but I don't remember High School or Gradeschool basketball officials being hired to make a good game - we're there to make sure no one gets hurt to the best of our ability, administer the rules as stated in the rules, cases, and by our interpreter, and to let the game flow - IMHO, in the order I stated them.

It sounds like you're saying we're not supposed to enforce the rules - I picked some things that some officials have flat out stated they will not call. How can you be an official for a sport, with defined rules, cases which clarify those rules, and an interpreter saying what needs to be called, and just say "Nope... I'm calling what I want, when I want, regardless of what they say... if I personally disagree with a rule, I'm not enforcing it."

It reminds me of when I had braces. I did what I was told, and ended up having to wear them longer because I did what I was told, and they told me what to do based on most of the kids with braces not doing what they were told. I did what I was told, and I was penalized for it. If we have rules, if we have cases, if we have an interpreter saying "This is how we're supposed to do it", how can you support an official who chooses to ignore all three, and do their own thing?

Rich	Wed Feb 15, 2006 08:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii

One major problem with this sport is the range of what is acceptable for calls when compared to the rules. Many officials choose not to call specific things because they disagree with the rules, or choose to ignore things in favor of game flow. I tend to be a very rules-oriented person, but there are people who very clearly, through their statements, choose not to call things because they disagree with the rule.

The only part in that I want to respond to is above. Forgive me if I over-snipped.

Game flow is an important part of what we do. My personal pet peeve involves marginal traveling calls or marginal fouls called that interrupt games. We are there to facilitate the game; we aren't gun-slingers out to nail every little thing we think might violate a particular rule.

I've seen a TON of this in subvarsity contests this season. Foul after foul after foul on contact that causes NO disadvantage at all. Travels called on ugly plays that clearly, by rule, aren't traveling violations. Ugh.

But in this case, you are stating that it is "ugly, but not a travel" - so therefore, there shoulnd't be a call - and this I agree with. And I understand, to a certain extent, advantage/disadvantage. But when you think about it, isn't it always to the fouled team's advantage to call a foul, because that puts them closer to the bonus, and that opponent closer to being out of the game? I mean, that is a more global (and less considered) advantage/disadvantage argument... and not commonly accepted as a reasonable interpretation - but isn't it one way to look at those fouls?

Besides... in Basketball, advantage/disadvantage is listed in the rules as a consideration. In soccer, it is actually part of the rules and required to be considered. In basketball, there is no clear statement in there that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage. It does explain that somewhat - but nothing like soccer, where the rules say you must pass on calling a foul where there is an advantage to allow the fouled player to keep playing.

Advantage/disadvantage is not considered from an administrative standpoint. To me and to all the other varsity/college officials I work with, advantage/disadvantage means we don't stop the game on contact unless it's excessive or if, in our judgment the person (or sometimes the team) contacted is disadvantaged. We don't care about the bonus or the number of fouls on a player.

Coming to grips with this is what takes most officials from the subvarsity level to the varsity level. I've lived in 6 states and things are pretty much the same everywhere I've officiated.

The one thing I've read above that I think is completely incorrect is your quote: "that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage". If there is no disadvantage or if the contact isn't excessive, there's no foul. There can be contact without a foul. That is in the rulebook.

I agree with that. But then when you get someone slapping another player loudly, that everyone in the place hears, and you pass on it, you look like a bad official. I'm talking about the kind of slap where there is absolutely no effect on the play, but it just sounds really bad. Most officials call that, at least most that I have seen, even if there is no disadvantage to the slapped player.

I do have to say that it seems that most officials DO consider the concept of "how many fouls a player has" in their decisions to call fouls... i have always been told, and see it in action all the time - if you have a player with 3 fouls, or very much so if they have 4, make sure when you call something on them, it is a clear foul and not a cheap one. I have never agreed with this. The rules and interpretations state clearly that if it is a foul at the beginning of the game, it is at the end, and everywhere else in between. Same with positioning - a foul at one end, in the middle, in the paint, or by the sideline, is the same. It's easier to see things outside the paint, because of a lack of a crowd, but that you are supposed to call things the same throughout.

I have that philosophy on EVERY foul. All fouls need to be clear, not cheap fouls.

But by clear, I mean "causes a disadvantage." I may (or may not) pass on the slap you mentioned above yet call a very slight bump that causes a travel or loss of ball or balance.

drinkeii

Wed Feb 15, 2006 08:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I have that philosophy on EVERY foul. All fouls need to be clear, not cheap fouls.

But by clear, I mean "causes a disadvantage." I may (or may not) pass on the slap you mentioned above yet call a very slight bump that causes a travel or loss of ball or balance. [/B]

I definitely agree with that.

Back In The Saddle

Wed Feb 15, 2006 09:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sympathetic

Quote:

Originally posted by drinkeii
Besides... in Basketball, advantage/disadvantage is listed in the rules as a consideration. In soccer, it is actually part of the rules and required to be considered. In basketball, there is no clear statement in there that you should ignore a foul which does not generate a disadvantage. It does explain that somewhat - but nothing like soccer, where the rules say you must pass on calling a foul where there is an advantage to allow the fouled player to keep playing.

If you are looking for a book of unassailable "Thou shalt not..."s, engraved in stone from an infallible rulegiver on high, you fundamentally misunderstand the basketball rule book. So let's start at the beginning, and please pay particular attention to how advantage/disadvantage are woven through the entire fabric of the rules.

THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasize cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.

Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

THE GAME - Basketball is played by two teams of five players each. The purpose of each team is to throw the ball into its own basket and to prevent the other team from scoring. The ball may be thrown, batted, rolled or dribbled in any direction, subject to restrictions laid down in the following rules.

That is the lens through which officials must read and interpret the rules. Note that we are not told to mindlessly apply every rule as written no matter what. We are expected to employ intelligence and judgement in applying them. We are to consider not just the lifeless text of the rule, but it's intent and purpose. And we are to judge each situation individually.

What constitutes a "balance of play" and whether a particular contact hinders an opponent are very subjective judgements. They will change from level to level, and even from game to game within the same level. That is why a sound grasp and feel for the flow of the game is vital. At its most fundamental, the official's job is apply the minimum amount of interference to keep the players in check and ensure that a basketball game happens.

Few things make me crankier than the clueless player, coach or fan who spends all game hollering about 3 seconds. Their fundamental view of the game is not that they should go out and leave it all on the floor in a competition between two teams. They want the officials to scrutinize every detail of their opponent's behavior, searching for reasons to take the ball from them. To them it's not about proving that one team is more skilled or athletic or talented or conditioned or courageous than another, it's just a cowardly, lawyer-like contest of trying to deny the other team the opportunity to play their game by pouncing on every potential transgression. It's not an attitude of "I believe I can do this better than you" it's just a continual barrage of "hey, you can't do that!" It's more like petty sibbling rivalry than a sporting competition.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43pm.

Page 4 of 4

« First

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1