Sigh...it's the NCAAW mechanic. Not a philosophy that I have...and trust me, I pre-game this thoroughly and tell my partners that if it is a secondary defender, please feel free to come in and help out. The L didn't need to come in and help out because the T made the call...why is this so hard to understand?

I agree and apologize. Careful with your grammar TR, the grammar busters are out!!!

Wrong again, Nate.

I use the word <b>"CONSISTENCY"</b>, not advantage/disadvantage!

Good try, though.

Thanks for all your insulting comments throughout this post JR. Anytime I need the ANSWER to anything I'll forget about posting and just PM you. I'm sure you are the most consistent official here and in your area as well. Well you go off an be CONSISTENT, while the rest of us try to have a conversation, without continuing the ignorance you have already polluted this thread with.

Unbelievable also.....

I disagree completely with you too. There's no "feel" at all to it. You're doing nothing but interjecting your own personal opinion into the game instead of calling the game consistently. By the last minute of the game, the players should <b>absolutely</b> know what they can do and what they can get away with. Guys like you and Nate just confuse the hell outa them instead.

And that's a complete pile of phooey too for you to claim that the officials working games on tv are slavishly following <b>your</b> own personal opinion. Heckuva way to try and add a l'il credibility to yourself, but that dog don't hunt. I got eyes too. The guys that are still working in the tournament are the ones that have the best judgement <b>and</b> are consistent, not the one's swallowing their whistles at the end of a tight game. That's my opinion.

Depends. Did we as a crew make that call on a similar play earlier in the game? If we did, than it needs to be called now. If we passed on that similar contact earlier, than we should pass on it now as well. If this is the first time we saw that contact all game (not likely, but possible), then we/I need to make the decision on whether to call the foul. I did not see most of that game, so I can't tell you if the crew was consistent in hand check calls, or in other block/charge calls. So I can't say if it was a good no-call on the hand check. But I do know hand-checking is a POE in NCAA-W, so I would have some explaining to do to my supervisor if we had called it early in the game, then let it go at that point.

Similarly, you mentioned the palming violation called late in the Geo. Mason/UCONN game. Had there been any other palming calls made during that game? Palming/carrying is a POE this year for NCAA-M; is there a caveat mentioned on only calling it if there's a clear advantage gained? If not, what would your explanation be for your supervisor when they ask why you let it go at that important point in the game?

There was nothing insulting at all in my post. I corrected the completely false impression that you tried to establish in your post by putting <b>your</b> words into <b>my</b> mouth. Not once have I talked about advantage/disadvantage. I'm talking about calling the game <b>CONSISTENTLY</b>!

Nate, my opinion of you hasn't changed from my previous analysis. If anything, you've confirmed it. You don't have a clue when it comes to officiating, and you don't have a clue as to what myself or anybody else has been trying to tell you.

I ref some JuCo ball, and in every one of those games my crew chief (and most times the other umpire) has been a NCAA official. Not to say I disagree or agree, but on every occassion where we've had potential last possession game winning/tying situation I've heard words from my crew chiefs to the effect of "let's not have any cheap fouls", "make sure it's a foul", etc. I also have been to a college camp in the Southeast where the subject of last-second game-changing plays was discussed and the speaker touched on foul calls and there being a degree of certainty (i may be a little off on the terminology) needed before you blow your whistle.

So we can't ignore that there is a school of thought being espoused by some high-level officials that there is a difference between a call you would make at the 7-minute mark of the game and one made at the 39:53 mark of the game.

Whether you agree or don't agree is one thing, but let's not act like that philosophy does not exist.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't think that you're fully understanding what I've been trying to say either. And I think that M&M has basically been saying the same thing.

Nobody wants to see a cheap foul called at the end of the game. It sureasheck <b>should</b> be a good foul if you're gonna call one then. But.....you should be making the exact same determination at the 7-minute mark as you do at the 39-minute mark- i.e. was it a righteous foul <b>both</b> times? If it isn't, then you shouldn't be calling it at the 7-minute mark either.

That's the "school of thought" and philosophy being espoused by some high-level officials imo. It's only "game-changing" if you call something that has been consistently let go up to then, or if you ignore something that has been called consistently up to then.

I understand your point and follow clearly. No there hadn't been any other palming violations called in the UNCON game and no advantage was gained, but it was palming.

I have heard from many a veteran-partner that towards the end of a tight game, "make sure you have a solid call". The calls do change in the last few minutes of a tight game - maybe that's a new trend (not enough experience here to know). So long as you are consistent with that philosophy on both ends of the court, what's the problem?

This thread keeps trying to return to something civil - why some of you try to fight that is tough to figure out. :confused:

It isn't insulting to tell someone that they suck and are dead wrong. HMMMM. If we had moderators this is probably where they woulda come in. LOL. Or maybe after you told me that I have no balls to make late game calls. Sounds insulting to me. I think I pegged YOU also.

Well since I work HS games with some officials who work NCAA-W and some who work NCAA-M and some who work neither, it's something that needs to be pre-gamed. That's my point. Did I imply that you didn't ? Just b/c you thoroughly pre-game it doesn't mean everyone else on this forum does.

My point is officials come into games with different philosophies/mechanics. I worked a girls' regional HS play-off game with 2 members of another board who both work NCAA-W and guess what happened at the end of the 1st quarter. We had no whistle to kill the quarter because I was the C, but tableside, and the trail, opposite table, was thinking about the NCAA-W mechanic instead NFHS. But I blamed myself immediately b/c I was the "R" and I knew I was working with 2 NCAA-W officials and I forgot to cover last second shot responsibilities in my pre-game.

BTW Rocky, the Sigh... and...why is this so hard to understand? were unnecessary.

Most officials would agree with this philosophy IMO. Some officials just don't like to admit it. Thought process of players change in the final seconds of play. They know if the games tied and they are in the bonus that they should take it hard to the bucket. Officials also know this are aren't going to give that whistle quite so quickly.

[QUOTE=jkjenning] The calls do change in the last few minutes of a tight game - maybe that's a new trend (not enough experience here to know). So long as you are consistent with that philosophy on both ends of the court, what's the problem?

QUOTE]

The problem with that philosophy is the fact that you are now allowing player A42 (just an example) to get away with the exact same thing that you sat B50 down at the 13:42 mark with his/her fourth foul...you don't see that as an issue??