Question

[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.

[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 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.

[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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

JRut-
I'm not saying that it helps me currently, but when I began finding my way (transitioning from a ref to an official) that philosophy helped me understand how to make those calls correctly.

80/20 won't allow you to make this mistake per your statement: "If the defender did nothing illegal (got to the ball first) the contact can be severe and I am not calling a foul".

Really?

The defensive player runs and flies toward the shooter clearly blocking the shot. The defensive mans momentum carries him into the shooter who has returned to the floor and knocks the shooter to the floor. This is a foul and needs to be called.

Then you need to read Rule 4-27-1 which says: "The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur."

Then you need to read 4-27-2 which says: "Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive and offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe."

Then you need to read 4-27-3 which says: "Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in a normal defensive and offensive movements should be considered incidental."

I am using the wording of the rulebook. Now you are using a philosophy that does not even go along with the wording of the rulebook or based on what is reality. How do you measure 80% contact?

Also you may feel that needs to be called, I feel it does not. And nothing you say is going to change my mind. Why, because I have come to the conclusion based on my experience that I have almost never seen a block without some contact. So if a defender makes a block, the defender better have purposely done something to get a foul called on them if they got to the ball first. If I use your logic, then every time someone goes to the basket and is defended hard, we have to call a foul. Sorry, that is not very good officiating from my point of view.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

I'm sorry for not responding earlier; I simply did not see this post. My apologies.

I'll try to answer it the best way that I can, bearing in mind that there really is no way to definitively answer the questions that have arisen imo.

Calling a foul for contact on a block attempt is a straight judgment call imo. The rules give us some guidance, but they don't cover all situations, also imo. For instance, NFHS case book play 4.19.3SitB states that you you should call an intentional foul if defensive contact from behind puts the shooter on the floor, even though the defender may have gotten "all ball" on the block. The bottom line though is that each individual official has to judge whether the contact that occurs on plays like these is incidental contact or illegal contact. The gray area also increases when you move from level to level. More physical contact is expected at the D1 level as opposed to, say, the JV high school level. Some D1 conferences are traditionally known for allowing a greater level of contact also.

Each official usually formulates their own tolerance level through experience and also by observing fellow local officials when it comes to the amount of contact that they will allow during a shot. As I said, it's simply a judgment call by the calling official anyway. Hopefully, you end up calling the contact consistently and evenly at both ends of the court. Players and coaches need those guidelines established so that they know what they can do and not do in that particular game.

Note that the "consistency" that I'm talking about sureasheck is not Old School's brand of consistency where he is advocating repeating bad calls.

80/20 is completely meaningless in the context of what I've described above imo. All that is doing, also imo, is making the call harder and more confusing, especially to newer officials. Maybe I'm not good enough, but I don't think that I could just freeze-frame a call and then try to decide whether there was 79, 80, 0r 81% contact. That's way too deep for me. All I do do is look at the play and say that the defender either whacked the shooter and gained an illegal advantage by doing so, or the defender made incidental contact that didn't affect the shooter enough to warrant a foul call. The bottom line is still that the call depends on your judgment. As I said, I'm a firm believer in not trying to overthink what you're doing out there.

I also personally use a "push" foul signal if I deemed that the defender committed illegal contact with his body, and the "illegal use of hand" signal if the defender whacked the shooter on an arm.

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.

[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...

[deecee]

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

the dolt even rebutes himself

[Old School]

Originally Posted by deecee

the dolt even rebutes himself

But the message is still the same and that is indisputable.

Originally Posted by OldShool

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.

[Adam]

But if you make the call and immediately realize it was a bad call, you shouldn't compound it by making a similar bad call at the other end. That's not consistency, that's a "make-up call."