Question

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I've heard clinicians talk about this at camp in relation to a blocked shot a few times. Some are of the opinion that if a blocked shot attempt is 80% clean and 20% contact, let it go. More 'camp speak.'

Then maybe you should call the foul on 80% of the player's number, i.e.: foul is on number 12, you call it on number 9.6, etc.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

So you are telling me that if you screw up a play on one end, you screw it up on the other right? This is to be consistant right? So you want to be consistantly wrong... Gotcha.

How bout... I screw it up on one end (it does happen) but I learn from it and if it happens on the other end I go ahead and get it right on the other end and do the game right. If the coach asks about it, I have to tell him that I got the play wrong originally but I am working very hard to get the rest of them right. That is how a pro would handle it.

And BS on the stuff not applying in NFHS b/c it does. You have to judge each play as it happens.

Disagree. I think it is best to be consistent on both ends of the floor to balance the art of fair play, which is what we are there to do. I don't think it's right for you to penalize a player on one end, and then let it go on the other end. I don't know what type of coaches you get to do your games, but if I'm coaching, I'm picking up on that right away and you and your crew is going to get an ear-full from me. In fact, that starts the BS because there is nothing you can say that's going to satisfy me here except to call the game consistently.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Then maybe you should call the foul on 80% of the player's number, i.e.: foul is on number 12, you call it on number 9.6, etc.

So Mark, any body part in particular you would use to communicate the "point"?

Hmmm....? Mark?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

I don't know what type of coaches you get to do your games, but if I'm coaching, I'm picking up on that right away and you and your crew is going to get an ear-full from me.

Not for long.

Originally Posted by Old School

In fact, that starts the BS because there is nothing you can say that's going to satisfy me here except to call the game consistently.

I don't need to satisfy the coach, I only need to calm him down. If I can't do that, then game management will be escorting him from the gymnasium. Pretty simple, really.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

You have to judge each play as it happens.

Stick that stoopid 80/20 nonsense where the sun don't shine and use this philosophy. If it's a freaking foul, call the damn thing. If it isn't a freaking foul, don't call anything. If you don't know what a freaking foul is, then you either learn or you try some other avocation.

Lah me.......sometimes I think that fanboys instead of fellow officials come up with some of these stoopid damn theories just to get even with us for screwing their favorite teams.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Disagree. I think it is best to be consistent on both ends of the floor to balance the art of fair play, which is what we are there to do. I don't think it's right for you to penalize a player on one end, and then let it go on the other end. I don't know what type of coaches you get to do your games, but if I'm coaching, I'm picking up on that right away and you and your crew is going to get an ear-full from me. In fact, that starts the BS because there is nothing you can say that's going to satisfy me here except to call the game consistently.

If you blow a call, you NEVER deliberately blow the same call for the rest of the game just to show the world that you're consistent. All you're doing is showing everybody that you're consistently wrong! Coaches sureashell are gonna pick up on any clown that did something like that.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

So Mark, any body part in particular you would use to communicate the "point"?

Hmmm....? Mark?

I think Juulie would have the advantage on me here.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Stick that stoopid 80/20 nonsense where the sun don't shine and use this philosophy. If it's a freaking foul, call the damn thing. If it isn't a freaking foul, don't call anything. If you don't know what a freaking foul is, then you either learn or you try some other avocation.

Lah me.......sometimes I think that fanboys instead of fellow officials come up with some of these stoopid damn theories just to get even with us for screwing their favorite teams.

Whoa, Whoa JR.... How'd I get lumped in with the fan boys? All I am saying, is that you have to judge each play and determine who is responsible for the contact and did the contact create an advantage?

But I got the message from OS... If i am wrong on one end, I need to be wrong on the other to be consistant...even if it means I am consistantly wrong! Brilliant!!!

Hey OS... That is where I tell the coach, Hey man I blew it, but it won't happen again. Most coaches accept that. If you are the coach and don't well then... you get whacked. If you go in to another tirade about it, guess what my partner whacks you and then you can deal with your AD and the commish of the conf. End 'o Story.

[Brad]

I agree with fanboy ... er ... bball_junkie -- the call is the same at every level - it's either a foul or it isn't.

I've heard of the 80/20 thing and I've used it myself to get across the point that just because their is some body contact, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a foul. If the defensive player mostly blocks the ball, but, in doing so, there is also some body contact, let it go.

Most officials that I see calling fouls on this type of play say "He got him with the body" -- that's when you know it is a BS foul.

80/20, advantage/disadvantage, just call the freaking foul, etc. -- it's all saying the same thing, just in different ways.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

But I got the message from OS... If i am wrong on one end, I need to be wrong on the other to be consistant...even if it means I am consistantly wrong! Brilliant!!!

Hey OS... That is where I tell the coach, Hey man I blew it, but it won't happen again. Most coaches accept that. If you are the coach and don't well then... you get whacked. If you go in to another tirade about it, guess what my partner whacks you and then you can deal with your AD and the commish of the conf. End 'o Story.

#1, let's back up a minute. We are talking about a questionable foul call, could go either way. I go the way of foul, because I quick whistle it, thought I had a foul but you know what, I probalby could have passed on that one. These type of things happen in a game, it's the reality of the job we do. The thing you can't do is take it back. You will look like a bigger idiot trying to do that. So we have to go forward. Well, if it's a foul down here it's going to be a foul down there. That's all I'm saying.

What you and Snaqs fail to understand is we live in the age of media. I got the game on tape, and the tape don't live. I got you making the call here and not making the same type of call there. Now, you have escalated it to me getting toss. Now, I point out to your assigner how you where being inconsistent which lead to me getting tossed. Yea, you're right. I'll eat it with my AD and serve my suspension, but you, you might not get to work anymore of my games, or worse, you might get a call from your assigner.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Jurrasic, I value your opinions & think you provide the forum with great knowledge, in fact I was hoping to see you chime in with some answers to my OP.
The 80/20 principle helped me alot because as we know any yahoo can blow a whistle & call fouls, but a good official has a feel for the game & can determine whether certain contact warrants a foul being called. 80/20 is good way to make good block shots calls vs. a foul IMHO.

If that principle helps you call the game, then more power to you. I guess the reason I do not like it because I do not need to weigh the percentage of contact with how much ball is blocked. If the defender did nothing illegal (got to the ball first) the contact can be severe and I am not calling a foul. If the defender caused contact to complete the block, then I have a foul. I think it is easier to stick to another philosophy or wording to come up with a similar result.

Peace

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Old School

What you and Snaqs fail to understand is we live in the age of media. I got the game on tape, and the tape don't live. I got you making the call here and not making the same type of call there. Now, you have escalated it to me getting toss. Now, I point out to your assigner how you where being inconsistent which lead to me getting tossed. Yea, you're right. I'll eat it with my AD and serve my suspension, but you, you might not get to work anymore of my games, or worse, you might get a call from your assigner.

I think you're wrong here. If these are close calls we're talking about, which you said earlier they are, I doubt an official is going to get suspended or not assigned more games for the simple fact that they called one close play one way and another another way. I doubt any assigner is going to look at that and say, you know, that's a rotten official treating one team unfairly.

I do agree that we need to be consistent in determining what is and what is not a foul, and hopefully we would be consistent throughout a game. But I don't think that close calls going one way or the other is going to get you in too much trouble.

[deecee]

regarding 80/20 what comes first the 80 or the 20?

did the 20% body contact occur before the 80% ball contact or vice versa.

what if there was no 20% body contact would the 80% ball contact occur?

and who and how in the heck am i supposed to break down body/ball contact into percentages from 100? how would 79/21 work? no?

just curious as to who comes up with these exact numbers as i would love to understand the methodology of how they were ascertained.

reminds me of a great quote from 40 year old virgin or anchorman (well almost the exact quote) but it can be applied here -- 20% of the time we are right 80% of the time.

[Brad]

It's not an exact percentage -- just an idea to communicate that if it is MOSTLY a blocked shot, then the contact is considered incidental.

If the contact caused the defender to be able to block the ball, you can call a foul. However, if the defender was able to block the ball, regardless of the contact, it's not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

Whoa, Whoa JR.... How'd I get lumped in with the fan boys? All I am saying, is that you have to judge each play and determine who is responsible for the contact and did the contact create an advantage?

But I got the message from OS... If i am wrong on one end, I need to be wrong on the other to be consistant...even if it means I am consistantly wrong! Brilliant!!!

You misread me, Brendan. I was agreeing completely with what you were saying. I sureasheck wasn't lumping you in with fanboys, for sure. Hell, you know that.

You stated that "you have to judge each play as it happens". That's why I highlighted that statement. I then said that what you said is the procedure that should be used. Imo, that's the only to make foul calls. Just look at the play, use your experience and knowledge to decide if a foul occurred and should also be called, and just call the damn thing. The only points that I was trying to make were(1) Don't overthink the game and make it any harder that it really is, and (2) getting into an 80/20 mindset, especially for newer officials, is kinda ridiculous. It's just another way of saying something that has been much more simply stated for about as long as Naismith's game has been played.....decide whether the contact was incidental or whether it was a foul. That decision is a straight judgment call, and it always has been imo.

As for old School's statement, I was echoing your response there also. Deliberately calling plays wrong in the name of "consistency" is consistently stoopid and consistently wrong.