more patient?

[chrs_schuster]

I understand what you all are saying and thanks for the advice. First the fans do not bother me or influence my calls in any way. I was just stating how the fans were reacting to our calls or not calls. Second, Rusty gilbert maybe right in that I'm looking at the ball to much and not my primary. But as T , or even C, everybody is crowded at the basket in girls game where am I supposed to look? I know its an experience thing and I was just looking for a few answers to help it along

[Rich]

Originally Posted by chrs_schuster

I understand what you all are saying and thanks for the advice. First the fans do not bother me or influence my calls in any way. I was just stating how the fans were reacting to our calls or not calls. Second, Rusty gilbert maybe right in that I'm looking at the ball to much and not my primary. But as T , or even C, everybody is crowded at the basket in girls game where am I supposed to look? I know its an experience thing and I was just looking for a few answers to help it along

You are saying that they aren't calling fouls -- could you put those calls in terms of advantage/disadvantage and tell me that they were passing on calls that definitely put the other team at a disadvantage?

One thing I notice in girls games is that everyone in the crowd and even many of the coaches think every little bump and every little bit of contact is a foul. It's not and I don't care how much they b!tch -- I'm calling the game the right way as ANYONE can call every little bit of contact.

Oh, we had a girls game the other night where we didn't hit the bonus in EITHER half. Why is that a big deal?

Also, a patient whistle is always good when it comes to fouls. You need a little extra time in many cases to judge advantage/disadvantage.

[Mountaineer]

I certainly don't mind partners calling fouls - HOWEVER - I do get frustrated when they call "game interupters". Hold the whistle and make sure that defensive advantage has been gained. Of course protect the shooter but your partners were correct in that there is some contact that needs to be played through. The bottom line is that all contact is not a foul and going a step father all illegal contact it NOT a foul. Remember that a slow whistle is not a bad thing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

HOWEVER - I do get frustrated when they call "game interupters".

Could you explain that a little more, please. I keep reading about "game interrupters" and how they're supposed to be such a bad thing, but I'm not really sure what a "game interrupter" really is. Doesn't every single whistle that any official blows, whether it was for a violation or a foul, interrupt the game? Is the concept that you should call fewer violations and fouls so as to not interrupt the game as much, with the goal of eventually reaching a point where you don't call anything and you never interupt the game?

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Could you explain that a little more, please. I keep reading about "game interrupters" and how they're supposed to be such a bad thing, but I'm not really sure what a "game interrupter" really is. Doesn't every single whistle that any official blows, whether it was for a violation or a foul, interrupt the game? Is the concept that you should call fewer violations and fouls so as to not interrupt the game as much, with the goal of eventually reaching a point where you don't call anything and you never interupt the game?

No, the officials whistle does not ever interupt the game, or the flow of the game. The foul or violation does that. I just make sure that if I'm blowing my whistle, the game has really already been interupted. Does that make sense? Are you going to call every contact a foul? No. Where do you draw the line when B1 is tracking A1 with his left hand? When the flow of the play has been interrupted, right?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

1) No, the officials whistle does not ever interupt the game, or the flow of the game. The foul or violation does that. I just make sure that if I'm blowing my whistle, the game has really already been interupted. Does that make sense?

2) Are you going to call every contact a foul?

3) Where do you draw the line when B1 is tracking A1 with his left hand? When the flow of the play has been interrupted, right?

1) No.

2) No, just the actual fouls. Incidental contact isn't a foul.

3) Yup, iow when someone gains an advantage.

None of this still doesn't change the fact that any time you blow your whistle, you're still interrupting the game. Why then are some whistles deemed to be "game interrupters" then and others aren't? As an official, we're supposed yto call fouls and violations, aren't we? Or are we supposed to only call some fouls and violations? And if so, what are the violations and fouls that we're supposed to call?

Please enlighten me, someone.

[Nevadaref]

Bait Alert! Bait Alert! JR's fishing.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Could you explain that a little more, please. I keep reading about "game interrupters" and how they're supposed to be such a bad thing, but I'm not really sure what a "game interrupter" really is. Doesn't every single whistle that any official blows, whether it was for a violation or a foul, interrupt the game? Is the concept that you should call fewer violations and fouls so as to not interrupt the game as much, with the goal of eventually reaching a point where you don't call anything and you never interupt the game?

No, every foul or whistle that is called is not a "game interrupter". A game can still flow in spite of violations and fouls. Of course there can be no "game interrupters" and still be no flow. I think that everyone would agree that a game that has a good flow to it is more enjoyable and easier to officiate. To give you a definition of a game interrupter would be impossible - it really depends on the game and the call.

By rule, you could probably have and and-1 on almost every play inside. Do you call them all? Gosh, I hope not. Most of those would probably fall into the category of a game interrupter. Illegal contact that doesn't effect speed, rhythm and balance could be considered a game interrupter. Again, you'll notice all of these COULD be game interrupters. There is not a standard definition - game situation, type of foul, position on the floor, score and the flow of the game all go into what can make a foul a game interrupter.

tomegun, I think you are basically correct - more succinct than I was. Hope that makes the situation even more cloudy! LOL

[JRutledge]

Could some of this conversation be about more minutiae than any in recent history?

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Could some of this conversation be about more minutiae than any in recent history?

Peace

If arguing about game flow and what constitutes an interruptor is minutiae, I'd hate to see what is really important.

[Mountaineer]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Could some of this conversation be about more minutiae than any in recent history?

Peace

OMG, you think discussing game flow is minutiae? I actually think that flow is one of the more important things a young official can learn! We have a thread talking about holding a whistle in your hand rather than using a lanyard and you call THIS minutiae? What do you call that thread then?

I also think tomegun's thoughts about his wife interrupting him from cutting the grass and stopping on the way to the crapper very important!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer

1)To give you a definition of a game interrupter would be impossible - it really depends on the game and the call.

2) Illegal contact that doesn't effect speed, rhythm and balance could be considered a game interrupter.

1) Oh.....OK.

2) Hmmmmm. I was always taught that contact that doesn't effect speed, rhythm and balance was supposed to be deemed as being incidental contact and not illegal contact.