Preventative Officiating

[JugglingReferee]

Not saying I agree or disagree, but....

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you think you missed the first foul or you know you missed the first foul, miss the second foul (on purpose) and call the 3rd foul. it worked rather well sometimes.

So you let a player get away with something and this approach works (rather well) for you, but only sometimes?

So other times it has worked only "ok", "passable"??

Let me pause for a sec...

Sometimes ... do you mean less than most times?

What if this retaliation (purposely missed second foul) is more severe than the instigating contact? Do you call it? Do you ignore it? If you call it, is the bar now not set somewhere that you don't like it?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Call a couple of quick and cheap off ball fouls on these players and it will stop one way or another. Either the coach will have to take out the player from the game or the players will adjust.

So above you said to let contact go, possibly significant, and here you're saying to call ticky tack fouls?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

BTW, I am not a huge fan of the double foul like I was early in my career. Penalize the right player, someone fouled first.

Maybe the NFHS doesn't feel this way. If they did, one could argue that there is no need for a double foul. If there is jostling that is illegal and so near each other in time, ding 'em both. That tells them that can't initiate this contact, nor retaliate.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Not saying I agree or disagree, but....

So you let a player get away with something and this approach works (rather well) for you, but only sometimes?

So other times it has worked only "ok", "passable"??

Let me pause for a sec...

Sometimes ... do you mean less than most times?

I think it was a little early in the morning for you. You really are reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the statement.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What if this retaliation (purposely missed second foul) is more severe than the instigating contact? Do you call it? Do you ignore it? If you call it, is the bar now not set somewhere that you don't like it?

Yeah, it is a little too early for you.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

So above you said to let contact go, possibly significant, and here you're saying to call ticky tack fouls?

I did not use the term “ticky tack,” you did. A "cheap" foul in my terminology is a foul committed by a player that should not have taken place on the player's part. In other words the player committed a foul that was basically dumb and unnecessary. I hear a lot of coaches use this term and it is not a criticism about the officials rather than a criticism of the player for doing something they should not do.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Maybe the NFHS doesn't feel this way. If they did, one could argue that there is no need for a double foul. If there is jostling that is illegal and so near each other in time, ding 'em both. That tells them that can't initiate this contact, nor retaliate.

It is not always about the NF. I do not work for the NF, but I do work for people that want certain things called and other things avoided. I think calling a double foul is more of a cop out because one of the players did something first. Work hard to get the first action or talk players out of behavior that might get a foul called on them. Also in my opinion we let the offensive player do just about anything and we do not call a thing on them. If you call a foul on an offensive player that pushed and held to keep the defender in a certain place, that sends a bigger message from my point of view.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think it was a little early in the morning for you. You really are reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the statement.

Yeah, it is a little too early for you.

I did not use the term “ticky tack,” you did. A "cheap" foul in my terminology is a foul committed by a player that should not have taken place on the player's part. In other words the player committed a foul that was basically dumb and unnecessary. I hear a lot of coaches use this term and it is not a criticism about the officials rather than a criticism of the player for doing something they should not do.

It is not always about the NF. I do not work for the NF, but I do work for people that want certain things called and other things avoided. I think calling a double foul is more of a cop out because one of the players did something first. Work hard to get the first action or talk players out of behavior that might get a foul called on them. Also in my opinion we let the offensive player do just about anything and we do not call a thing on them. If you call a foul on an offensive player that pushed and held to keep the defender in a certain place, that sends a bigger message from my point of view.

Peace

Curious: what else does the NFHS say we should know that you have decided warrants little to no enforcement?

If all your years of officiating (and I know you referee a lot), you have never had a situation where a double foul was the right thing to do? Do you have these hawk eyes that can tell that one foul happened so little before another?

I think it's a cop out to not call a double when it's time for one. Learn when to use it, then use it. The players will adapt - both of them!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Curious: what else does the NFHS say we should know that you have decided warrants little to no enforcement?

The NF tells us what the rules are and often does not tell us what philosophies to use that apply in the real world. If you could tell me where exactly the NF does show what a double foul outside of the definition is. Anything in the S&I Book?

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If all your years of officiating (and I know you referee a lot), you have never had a situation where a double foul was the right thing to do? Do you have these hawk eyes that can tell that one foul happened so little before another?

"BTW, I am not a huge fan of the double foul like I was early in my career. Penalize the right player, someone fouled first."

Did you read this statement? Apparently not. Also not sure what eagle eyes have to do with being able to concentrate on two players that are obviously fighting for position. I happen to work two games this past weekend where I had two 7 footers on the floor playing against each other. Not sure how bad your eye sight is, but it is easy to see two big guys like that as well as the many others that were 6'7 and above this entire weekend.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I think it's a cop out to not call a double when it's time for one. Learn when to use it, then use it. The players will adapt - both of them!

Considering that double fouls are mostly a judgment call (outside of a blarge call for example), you have every right to call what you see fit. A few of the people that I have worked for and some of the camps I been to, did not want us to call double fouls as the norm. Now if that is what they like in your area, call them all the time if it makes you feel better. I have learned to watch off ball and see the first foul. Or if I miss the first foul or think I missed the first foul, I revert to the philosophy that I was told while going to camps. Either way, you do what you feel is best and I will do what I think works for me.

Peace

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Curious: what else does the NFHS say we should know that you have decided warrants little to no enforcement?

The multiple foul.