Walton / Nantz's point - 6 fouls

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dealone

I was glad to hear John Wooden quoted this weekend that the most important change NCAA should stem increased contact/aggression (unfortunately Wooden is swimming uphill on this one cause the muscle game is good for tv).

The fact is that the NCAA is in complete agreement with Wooden. POE's over the last 10 years have always included comments about rough play. The NCAA rule-makers want "the muscle game" to be kept under control. It's up to the officials to make the calls on a consistent basis over the course of the entire season.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The fact is that the NCAA is in complete agreement with Wooden. POE's over the last 10 years have always included comments about rough play. The NCAA rule-makers want "the muscle game" to be kept under control. It's up to the officials to make the calls on a consistent basis over the course of the entire season.

Was there anything in those NCAA POE's saying that they don't apply to the stars?

[Junker]

I agree that you don't favor one player over another, but it is a good practice to know who the best player is on the floor and be aware when they are in foul trouble. As far as moving to 6 fouls, that's crap. 5 is just right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Junker

I agree that you don't favor one player over another, but it is a good practice to know who the best player is on the floor and be aware when they are in foul trouble.

Could you explain that in a little more detail?

If you don't favor them, then what do you do differently for them?

[Junker]

You are right, in a way it is definitely favoring a player and early in my career I was totally against it. As I've moved on to better games, I understand that you need to be aware of the better players and if they have 4, the 5th foul better be, without a doubt, a 5th foul. Of course, all 5 fouls on everyone should be, without a doubt, a foul.

[stmaryrams]

Originally Posted by Junker

You are right, in a way it is definitely favoring a player and early in my career I was totally against it. As I've moved on to better games, I understand that you need to be aware of the better players and if they have 4, the 5th foul better be, without a doubt, a 5th foul. Of course, all 5 fouls on everyone should be, without a doubt, a foul.

If you are consistent with your calls then it shouldn't matter. If you called a foul on a hand check on their "best player' in the first quarter then the "best player" better adjust or expect to get called for the same thing in the 4th quarter when they have 4 fouls.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by stmaryrams

If you are consistent with your calls then it shouldn't matter. If you called a foul on a hand check on their "best player' in the first quarter then the "best player" better adjust or expect to get called for the same thing in the 4th quarter when they have 4 fouls.

My reality is that I'm not calling a hand check on Maya Moore, 60 feet from the basket for a handcheck in the 4th quarter for her 5th foul. Yes it's a foul, but the crowd didn't pay their $5 or $10 dollars to see me, they came to see the players, and IMHO to put the star of game on the bench for a handcheck in the 4th game that may decide the outcome of the game just doesn't sit well with me and it probably won't sit well with my assignor as well.