![]() |
|
|
|||
Philosophy
My partner and I discussed philosophy before the game last night. (I worked the game with another woman, which is always nice.)
She and I both played, her experience much more recent than mine. We discussed letting the players play the game. I talked about how another partner in a previous game called blocking fouls I didn't agree with. A player receives the ball, then turns and starts dribbling. A defender is in legal position but in direct line to the basket and the dribbler tries to go past. The defender leans to avoid the collision but the dribbler trips over the foot. The defender has no chance to get out of the way and isn't illegal to start with. My previous partner called that a blocking foul every time. I consider it incidental contact, if anything. My partner last night agreed. Do you? What do you do in a game where one partner is calling those and you don't? Do you adapt for consistency as a team? Or do you just hope for the best, hoping you covered everything in pregame? Rita |
|
|||
Quote:
About your play, I think I'd have had to see it. Generally, if a defender leans, it's a foul, but there also needs to be contact, and enough contact to be a foul. So it's hard to say what I'd do if I were there. If the dribbler's only problem was the trip, and the leaning didn't cause anything, I'd probably let it go. If the foot didn't move, it was probably legal, if my picture from your description is accurate. About differing philosophies, you have to first match your philosophy to the body of refs in your area, which it is to be hoped matches the general NFHS philosophy. If you feel confident that your judgment (which is what we're talking about in your case play) is within the prescribed thinking of your assignor, then your partner has to be the one to ultimately face the music. If he's saying that whenever the dribbler trips over a defender he calls it a block, regardless of whether or not the defender had LGP, then he's dead wrong. And you shouldn't match that no matter what. You might even want to report him to your assignor, depending on how the politics work in your area. But when it's a philosophy about how to handle a blow-out, or how to deal with rough play, or how to keep a difficult coach in line, matching is a good thing. Also, defining advantage/disadvantage on borderline plays is good to match up if you can get a sneak peek at some of his borderline calls. If you finally can't match at all, and things are just looking way unfair, you can try to arrange it so that you're always under the basket, or he's always under the basket, so the same ref is getting first crack at the same plays. At least this is how I've tried to handle it when P and I are calling the same things at all. |
|
|||
Quote:
![]()
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden |
|
|||
Quote:
Occasionally, we have a problem when each partner refuses to adjust their calls. When that happens, and I think that's what the question in the oP was about, I try to adjust a little, and I try to make it so that one of us is getting the same calls at both ends. It's not the final answer, but it's one more tool. The tone of your responses seems a little snippy. What's the issue? |
|
|||
Quote:
I don't think I have seen that before. |
|
|||
Quote:
mick, she leaned away because she's young and inexperienced, and she doesn't get the "take a charge" thing yet. She'll either get it, or she won't play next year. |
|
|||
Quote:
The whole point is that we don't have to call a foul just because a collision or a fall happens. This guy calls fouls almost every time someone goes down. Rita |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Rita I agree with the block call. Anytime a player trips another player or feet get tangled up I am calling a tripping foul. Accidental or not, LGP or not. Players are more sly than we give them credit for. Think about this play:
A1 sprinting up the floor dribbling. B1 trailing just behind and to the left. Well B1's man is on the other side of the floor so he/she decides to go right behind A1 and they tangle up feet and A1 goes to the ground and loses the ball, but it didn't look like B1 was trying to do that on purpose. This is one form of a tripping foul that I call everytime regardless of intent. Another one: A1 dribbling with B1 in legal guarding position. A1 shakes left and comes back right. While A1 attempts to go by B1, B1 opens up his leg (inner thigh part sticking out toward defender) and A1 goes to the ground. I don't care whether B1 has legal guarding position or not that is a non-basketball defensive move used by people who are too lazy to move and hope that the player will trip and the refs will deem it incidental contact. Now I'm not saying everything is written in concrete with what I'm saying. There has been instances where I have passed on a trip for one reason or another (maybe I just missed the call). There can always be exceptions (i.e., the ball was loose and you didn't want to call a loose ball foul with bodies already everywhere on the floor.) |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A philosophy question? | kokayne | Basketball | 14 | Thu Nov 16, 2006 01:10am |
What is your philosophy | Jake80 | Baseball | 2 | Tue May 13, 2003 02:32pm |
NBA philosophy | Andy | Basketball | 3 | Tue Feb 18, 2003 08:32am |
Philosophy/Practice | MOFFICIAL | Basketball | 5 | Thu Sep 19, 2002 05:06pm |
Philosophy and How many "T"s? | Ron Pilo | Basketball | 6 | Tue Jan 11, 2000 02:20pm |