Question
 

You’re in the L position on the endline, A1 attempts a lay up off the drive, at the basket B5 jumps slightly into A1s plane (lil’ body, patient whistle) but getting all ball almost simultaneously. I’m familiar with 80/20 principle but if it was 20 body first then 80 ball & the try is unsuccessful… we gotta defensive foul right?

By NFHS regs & what clinicians will be looking for this summer, is the preferred signal when reporting this foul to the table a block? I’ve seen it reported a few different ways.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about with this 80/20 principle. I do not think I have ever heard that and do not see how that makes a difference in a call.

Peace

I, too, am unfamiliar with this 80/20 concept. And it seems to me as if the only foul on this play was a jumping into the player, which I usually signal as a push, as B5 was dislodging A1 from his already established position. Then again, depending on how quickly A1 is moving toward the basket, and the angle and speed at which B5 comes in, I could also see going with a block here.

I guess my point is, I would take a common sense look at the play, and say to myself, "did the foul cause the offensive player to change direction?" If yes, then I've got a push, if no, then I've got a block.

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.

Okay, advantage/disadvantage I can talk about. This whole 80/20 business just seems to complicate the issue. As the writer readily admits, the blocking of the shot is really inconsequential. A foul is a foul if a foul is a foul......even if he goes on to do a quadruple-lutz, grand slam, windmill, perpetual motion slam dunk. Anyways, I wasn't there to see the contact but if you think it was a foul, then call it. And I'll stick with what I said earlier about reporting it.

With that being said, I would not call a foul based on this principle. I would only call a foul based who I feel caused a real advantage or real disadvantage. I fell on block shots if the defender did something legal, why penalize them at all for contact they did not cause?

Peace

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.'

Okay, so the proper NFHS signal for a bump in the air or "body" should be reported a push NOT a block?

I have always been taught if there is contact with the body, it would be a block, but if the contact is with the hand or arms, it could be a push or illegal contact signal. However, I don't think you will get much feedback on either call. From the camps I've attended, there isn't a lot of emphasis put on the exact type of foul called. However, I have heard comments if you give one type of preliminary signal at the spot, and give a different signal at the table; that shows uncertainty of the call. But don't get too hung up on the subtle differences between the individual types of fouls. Just make sure you have a foul.

I have heard more of a claim that if the block is clean, let the play continue. Usually the term is "that is a play through."

Peace

I really do not think it matters. I mostly only call a block when there is a possible block/charge type of foul or a clear illegal screen. I do not think it is about what the NF says considering that I have never heard the NF specifically address why the signals are used and should not be used in specific situations.

Personally based on what you described, I would likely go with a push call.

Peace

How about it is a block if the defender prevents the offensive player from getting to a spot? It is a push if the defender moves the offensive player to a different spot. Just a simple way of thinking about the difference between calling a foul a block or a push. I just came up with this so if it sounds like bs, let me know.

You got a lot of difference responses here because this is a very good question. If you are new and just starting out, I would call this a foul. The reason is, nobody going to fault you for calling this a foul. In fact, in NFHS it is a foul and there's no such thing as a 80/20. Throw that out.

In college men's, you analyzed the play correctly, with the patient whistle. Now, we have to look at the end result of the play. If the guy blocked the shot, I got nothing, you let the good defensive play stand. We don't punish good defense. However, the same play and I'm lead and I got a bump on the offensive player, and then the subsequent block of the shot. I put air in the whistle, defense. However, I wish I would have passed because it was a good block. Too late, I already called it, can't take it back, it happens. I looked like and felt like an amatuer making that call. This is why they preach patient whistle. See the play thru. However, at the upper levels, patient whistle could also mean miss the play because the athletes are so quick. So there's a balance, and sometimes you're going to miss. I don't 2nd guess myself here, I just try to be consistent. If I screw it up on this end of the court, then it's going to be a foul on the other end. That's all you can do on this type of play.

You ever notice how when you make a call as the lead, you become the new lead on the other end. This helps to call the game consistently. I think they are talking about taking that away for next year. The calling official will become the C in NCAA Men's.

Appreciate the touchback, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a preferred signal for this foul as I've seen it reported different ways.
I wouldn't want to be that guy sticking out at camp for the wrong reasons.

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.

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. :confused:

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.

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

Hmmm....? Mark?

Not for long.
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.

Stick that stoopid 80/20 nonsense where the sun don't shine and use <b>this</b> philosophy. If it's a freaking foul, call the damn thing. If it isn't a freaking foul, <b>don't</b> 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.

If you blow a call, you <b>NEVER</b> 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 <b>wrong</b>! Coaches sureashell <b>are</b> gonna pick up on any clown that did something like that.

I think Juulie would have the advantage on me here. :eek:

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.

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.

#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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.:D

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 <b>only</b> 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.

Brendan is a big time fanboy -- you should have seen him crying after Duke lost their first round game!!!

Yes, REALLY!!!
 

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

Amen!

And the simpler explanations are also the best imo. All you're gonna get from newer officials is glazed eyes when you get into some of the terminology now being used at some camps. Each level of play has different levels of expectation also when it comes to the amount of physical contact that comprises a foul. At higher levels, you're usually expected to play through a heckuva lot more contact that might get called a foul(and rightly so) at, say, the JV level.

Please tell me you're kidding. Please tell me that the lad isn't a closet Dookie. Hell, he's a Texan. Isn't there some kinda law down there against being that? If not, there should be!

You really don't know how he got there? How about:

That's what we are giving you grief about. Not the fact that if it's a (legitimate) foul on one end that it will be a foul on the other end. What the problem is, as you stated, "ok, I screwed up on one end, so just to be consistent, I will continue to screw up on both ends".

C'mon now, even you should know that a wise man once said, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

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 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.

There's your statements, Old School. My original response to you was deleted. I'll repeat it, maybe toned down a little.

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 <b>bad</b> and consistently <b>wrong</b>.

Lah me......un-freaking-believable!:rolleyes:

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.

As ususal, just like Joey, you jumped to 99, extreme, with you, super extreme! Dial it back a little, be reasonable. Nobody is advocating calling bad calls but you.

The OP said he had contact, but the guy blocked the shot. I had the exact same thing happen the other day. I had contact and then the defender got up and blocked the shot. I could have passed on it, but I had a whistle. Damn, too late now. Tell me how many times this has happen in your careers. Be honest with yourself. Me, I'm not losing any sleep over it JR because I accept the fact that I am not perfect. We're shooting 2 shots.

Down on the other end, similiar play, similiar contact, defense blocks the shot, beep, we're shooting two. That be the way it is....

OK, I'm probably going to regret this...but someone please tell me what "lah me" means. I can't figure it out. :confused:

Usually I can figure out these "text abbreviations".

Well he can start fanning for the Duke Women now.
They just got a marvelous coach from Michigan State.

Huh? What "spin" are you talking about? It's a direct quote from your post.

Agreed. As long as the call was correct on one end, it will be a correct call on the other end. Consistency has to do with be consistently correct - from play to play, between officials, between games, from night to night. If, in your opinion, a certain type of contact should be called a foul, then yes, be consistent with continuing to call that foul. And, as a crew, your partners should call that same contact as a foul as well. 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 <B>don't</B> make that same call again.

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

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 <b>judgment</b> call imo. The rules give us some guidance, but they don't cover <b>all</b> 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 <b>incidental</b> contact or <b>illegal</b> 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 <b>bad</b> 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 <b>your</b> 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 <b>is</b> a definitive answer as to what constitutes a foul in these situations. It's a straight judgment call.

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

She's scary, Mick.....:eek:

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

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

<i>"Let's consistently make bad calls so that we're consistent."</i>

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.

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

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

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??!!

Now we're even.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/clap.gif

Peace

Well, we tried this and it didn't work...
http://www.forumspile.com/Stupid-Dogbert.jpg
:D

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.:)

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. :)

[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.

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:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[QUOTE=truerookie]
I saw the whole play through and blew the whistle. No matter how slight, it was contact on the jump shooter with the ball still in his hand. He took a knee to the back before the player smacked all ball, hence the foul.

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

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."

Snaqs, a quick look back sees that 6 different posters have told him that about 11 times so far. He just doesn't understand or comprehend what he's being told.

Indeed, consistency is important, not only for each official on each end, but also consistency as a crew, and hopefully crew consistency happens more often than not.

But then we get into the coaches' consistency in evaluation of contact. Does a two foot-pound foul count the same on each end of the court in the coaches' minds ? Dunno, but probably not.

If a coach says we are inconsistent, do we believe it, weigh it, or ignore it ? :cool:

When coaches talk about consistency, they are talking about consistency in their favor. So I do not pay much attention to that claim. When both teams run the same offenses and defenses at the same time, I will worry about consistency.

Peace