Question

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

But if I make a mistake, I will not make a second, third or fourth incorrect call in the name of consistency. That is as silly as a player telling a coach, "Sorry I missed that free throw coach, but I'll go ahead and miss the rest of them so I can consistent." If I make a bad call, I will work even harder to make sure I don't make that same call again.

Waste of time, M. He doesn't understand the concept and never will.

"Let's consistently make bad calls so that we're consistent."

The good thing is that I honestly can't believe that any official reading his nonsense will actually do anything else but laugh.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Waste of time, M. He doesn't understand the concept and never will.

"Let's consistently make bad calls so that we're consistent."

The good thing is that I honestly can't believe that any official reading his nonsense will actually do anything else but laugh.

...sigh...I know. But I currently have a teenage daughter who is learning how to drive, so I'm already used banging my head against a wall for no apparent reason.

[MajorCord]

Originally Posted by mick

Oh, Lawdy!
Lawdy, me!
Good, Lord!
Oh, Lord!
Heaven's Sakes!
Oh, my!

Thanks mick! Now I really feel stupid (but relieved - I thought maybe it stood for something REALLY BAD!)

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by Old School

That's just the way you're reading into it. Yes, I screwed up, kicked it, whatever term you want to spin on it. The fact of the matter is I can't take it back. We got to move forward. The same type of play, the same type of defense, the same type of contact will be a foul down there too. As I'm walking to the table, the coach says he's just standing there. I say, coach, I just made the same call down there! Case closed. Going the other route and being inconsistent is wrong to me, but that's just my opinion.

And that coach will say, I know... you kicked that one too, but I didnt say anything cuz it went in my favor.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

...sigh...I know. But I currently have a teenage daughter who is learning how to drive, so I'm already used banging my head against a wall for no apparent reason.

Yeah well at least you don't have a teenage son driving who'll feel obligated to keep you from banging your head against the wall by banging the damn car into a utility pole.

Do you have any idea how much money it costs to replace 1 stinking utility pole??!!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie

And that coach will say, I know... you kicked that one too, but I didnt say anything cuz it went in my favor.

Now we're even.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Now we're even.

This is admitting to making "make-up calls." Good officials don't do "make-up calls."

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Really? How about advantage/dsadvantage, 5 Ps of great officiating or the Oswald Tower Philosophy?

NOTE:
80/20
LETS REVISIT THIS CONTACT
By Gordon Strike

This is supposed to mean 80% ball contact and 20% player contact from an equally favorable position. This type of contact is considered incidental even if it is severe. The key is, equally favorable position. Consider this: the ball is skipped from one side to the other, allowing a good look at the basket with the defenseman 6-10 feet away from the shooter. The defensive player runs and flies toward the shooter clearly blocking the shot and sending it to the cheap seats. The defensive mans momentum carries him into the shooter who has returned to the floor and knocks the shooter to the floor. Is this a foul? He blocked the shot so he got part of the 80/20 rule right. But this is not the 80/20 rule, this is the 20/80 rule. 20% ball and 80% body contact. This is a foul and needs to be called.

The fans, coach and players will yell, “Great Block!” And it was. But the contact after the block is a foul because B was not playing A from a favorable position. He was too far away to adequately play defense and stop his shot. “A” had gained the advantage and that advantage should not be taken away from him just because B made great ball contact. Far to often this foul is not called because of the great block by B.

This call can be make correctly as follows. If the contact on A by B would be a foul if the shot was NOT blocked, then it is a foul if the shot IS blocked. Whether a foul is called or not, should be based on the contact and not on whether the shot is blocked or not. If the shooter is still in the air, it is a shooting foul. If the shooter has returned to the floor, it is just a common foul...


It goes on but that's the jist of it.

IMO the sentence in red is not a foul unless the contact is so violent that you can't pass on it. What you can't pass on is at your discretion.

The phrase in blue I totally disagree with. To be clear I'm picturing very athletic college level players when I think of this play:

A1 on a break away with B1 running him down. A1 gets to the rim to lay it in and B1, who catches A1, goes to block the ball and does in fact get the ball before body contact, but then subsequently knocks A1 to the floor. Not violently, but knocks him to the floor. Foul or no foul?

I have been taught that this is a "play on". If you block the shot and then make body contact, I have no problem with it most of the time because you don't illegally contact the player while trying to make a play. Now if you make body contact and then block the shot, I have a problem there, cause the player may have had to come through the offensive players space to block the shot.

To give an example: I had a play this year where the defender got stuck behind the offensive player (they were about 6 ft. from the basket, weird for the defender to be behind, I know). The offensive player knew where the defender was so he upfaked and the defender bit and jumped. While the defender was on his way down the offensive player started to go up. On the way up the defender made slight contact with the shooter on his way down, but then after the contact, he blocked the ball so clean. I blew the whistle. In my judgement the player created contact and in creating that contact he was able to block the shot. Had he blocked it first then contact I would have left it alone.


My point being let the defender make great defensive plays if he doesn't make contact before he blocks the shot.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Don't know if that helps any, but as I said, I really don't think that there really is a definitive answer as to what constitutes a foul in these situations. It's a straight judgment call.

Let me get this straight. When I applied judgement to this call, my call is a bad call and you tell everybody not to do it my way because it's wrong, than you turn around and say it's a straight judgement call. Let's go one step further. My call is the worse call ever made on this forum.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That might be the most single ridiculous piece of bad advice made in the history of this forum. It's completely asinine. You're advocating that an official should continue to make similar bad calls in the name of consistency. Iow if you make a terrible call at one end, make sure that you make the same terrible call at the other end. And then repeat the process to show that you're consistent. You're showing yourself to be consistent alright. Consistently bad and consistently wrong.

Judgment calls can go either way, so you jumping off the deep end that this is asinine is asinine. After further review, I wish I didn't call this one. I'm being honest. I'm thinking I'm the only one on this forum that's being honest. If you want to pretend that these type of things don't really happen, then you are living in a make believe world, and you need to quite drinking that damn kool-aid because it is taunted. It's not consistenecy versus inconsistency. It's about being fair. Now, this is what I stated.

Originally Posted by Old School

The only problem here is consistentcy. This was the talk of the NCAA finals. If I got a big kid, Oden, and he commits a foul, and the big kid from the other team (Georgetown) on the same type of play doesn't get a foul. If I'm the visiting team. I want to know what's going on and I will raise that issue with the assigners.

Keep it fair and I got outplayed. Not calling the same type of fouls on both ends of the court means one team has a huge advantage. Not last year but the years before. This was notorius in the WNBA finals. Bill Lambier put a stop to that in his games. He came unglued, he challenged the league, and you know what, he was right because I saw the same thing.

The further up the ladder you go, I think the more important it is to be consistent with your calls because everything is being psycho-analyzed these days. If I can point out that a certain official called it here but didn't call the exact same thing there. That wreaks of cheating. In order to be fair, you have to call it both ways. We're not talking a straight bad call like JR would have you believe here. We are talking judgment calls. Make sure your judgment is consistent thru-out the game and I think you will be better off.

If I let it go down here, then I'm going to let it go down there. If I call it down here, then I'm going to call it down there. This is the essense of good officiating. It is defendable. You calling it one way down here and the other way down there is not defendable, imo.

[JRutledge]

Why do you guys keep engaging this fool? Let it go. He is not going to say anything productive. He does not know what he is doing. Just ignore him and move on.

Peace

[JRutledge]

He even responded I did not use a name. That should tell you guys everything.



Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why do you guys keep engaging this fool?

Well, we tried this and it didn't work...

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This one?
http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi...Q=100&MaxW=250

She's scary, Mick.....

And not too popular in the beautiful state of Michigan anymore either, methinks.

I liked her, JR. Still do.
But she had to leave cuz her perfessor husband bit a cop in Miami and I think Duke got a twofer, just like Michigan State did.
I think the coach makes more than the perfessor.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mick

I think the coach makes more than the perfessor.

I think the Detroit News story said that she would be getting a base of $550,000 or so, same as the Duke coach that she replaced had made. I would imagine that's more than the perfesssor, Mick.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=btaylor64]
The offensive player knew where the defender was so he upfaked and the defender bit and jumped. While the defender was on his way down the offensive player started to go up. On the way up the defender made slight contact with the shooter on his way down, but then after the contact, he blocked the ball so clean. I blew the whistle. In my judgement the player created contact and in creating that contact he was able to block the shot. Had he blocked it first then contact I would have left it alone.

Question: Why contact was not severe enough to warrant an initial whistle? You stated yourself that is was slight contact. I know, I know patience whislte waiting to see the entire play develop.