Camp comment got me thinking

[Odd Duck]

I would like your feedback on a comment given to my crew after a game at this past weekend's camp.

I am L...drive starts in the T's primary. Some contact on A1 (wearing white) when she reaches the lane, takes another step then stumbles and the ball goes OOB off her. I saw the contact but it was no more than we had been passing on since the start of the game. The T also passed on the contact. The C had an unubstructed view of the play and also passed. After the game (which blue won easily) the clinician said that the C should have had a whistle because A1 was obviously frustrated and, in their opinion, fouled immediately after the inbound that followed as a result of that frustration. He said "You need a game management call there to keep the level of frustration down. Blue was definitely going to win as they were up big. Give white the call there even though the contact was minor and as a crew you had been passing on it all game." I certainly understand the approach and have been thinking about it for quite a while. There were no incidents in the game and I think the clinician was making a point that we should be aware of the ramifications of a no-call and consider "throwing them a bone" (my words...not his) occassionally.

The question...which is more important, consistency throughout the game on what is a foul or making calls to keep a team from getting frustrated?

[JRutledge]

I think you are asking the wrong question. Which is more important is really not the issue. I think I would like to get the play right. But if the game was a blowout and the player that had some contact that could have been a foul, I would agree with that observation. The problem with every observation is they do not apply across the board and only applies to the specific incident being discussed. Without knowing the players, the teams the game situation it is really hard for anyone to say this was a bad observation.

What kind of camp was this anyway? High School? College? Training?

Peace

[Ref in PA]

These are my thoughts:

Consistency from a crew is important - all game long. However, that is extremely difficult to do, especially when teams are near a threshold of what you will allow or call. Sometimes the crew lets play gradually get rougher because no ref on the crew is willing to step up and say enough is enough and draw the line. Good coaches and players will push and push to find out where the "limit" for that game will be as to allowable contact between offense and defense. In these games, someone on the crew must step up and establish the line of allowable contact. I did not see your game and do not know if the crew was allowing that "limit" to creep or not. I did not see your game and do not know exactly what "minor contact" you are referring to - that definition changes from ref to ref and sometimes changes in a game for some refs.

When I call a game, I do my best to keep control and call a consistent game. If constructive criticism comes to me after that game, I think I am objective enough to think about the comments and how I felt the game was proceeding at that moment. The evaluator has the luxury of watching the whole play develop and finish before making a judgement whereas those on the court must make that judgement at that moment. If you are not second guessing yourself after the play saying "I should have made that call" then those comments from the evaluator are less meaningful.

Also remember that minor contact can be a foul is a team is placed at a disadvantage. The bumps, the holds, the hand checks, while minor, could enable a defensive player maintain position when they were beat. Again, I did not see your game and cannot judge your "minor contact." Different levels will have different threshholds of minor contact definitions. Different areas of the country will also differ as to what is allowable and what is not.

So, with all that said, was the evaluator right? Only you can answer that.

Now to answer your question - I prefer consistency when calling a game. I will not "throw bones" to a team getting beat by the other team to appease their frustration level.

[Odd Duck]

Ref in PA...some excellent points. Without the benefit of a tape to go review, I can only say I don't THINK we were letting the contact limit creep. I can also see your point about one of the crew needing to draw the line...and that was the only comment he made about our foul selection.

I hope it didn't come across like I was questioning the wisdom of the clinician...because he has probably forgotten more about officiating the game than I will ever know.

Like I said, I certainly see his point...and I also think the secondary point was a reminder to use the whistle to avoid future problems. It was just a different way of stating it and got my gears turning...but isn't that one of the reasons we attend camps?

JRutledge...the camp could best be described as a teaching camp. All of the clinicians were D1 officials who work women. The vast majority of campers were there simply to get better at the HS game. There were some that were "practicing" and wanting feedback from those guys before attending a college "try-out" camp. The crew had the option of using NFHS or NCAA women's mechanics...but we were told the entire crew had to match. In all but one of the games I saw, NFHS mechanics were used. A couple of the campers asked for and recieved dispensation to use NCAA mechanics even if the others were using NFHS...which some campers quitely growled at. It didn't bother me at all...I was just there to learn and get better. I really couldn't care less if someone reported differently than me. As long as all the action was being officiated and they communicated to me and my other partner they could do their own thing.

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

Now to answer your question - I prefer consistency when calling a game. I will not "throw bones" to a team getting beat by the other team to appease their frustration level.

The OP stated that all three members of the crew passed on the marginal foul which did indeed cause the dribbler to stumble & lose the ball of off her person... disadvantage.

If I was the L & awarded the ball to white (to get it right) would that be considered throwing white a bone? I mean the missed/passed foul caused the turnover right? A quick "baseline or a foul coach/player..." usually shuts 'em right up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Odd Duck

JRutledge...the camp could best be described as a teaching camp. All of the clinicians were D1 officials who work women. The vast majority of campers were there simply to get better at the HS game. There were some that were "practicing" and wanting feedback from those guys before attending a college "try-out" camp. The crew had the option of using NFHS or NCAA women's mechanics...but we were told the entire crew had to match. In all but one of the games I saw, NFHS mechanics were used. A couple of the campers asked for and recieved dispensation to use NCAA mechanics even if the others were using NFHS...which some campers quitely growled at. It didn't bother me at all...I was just there to learn and get better. I really couldn't care less if someone reported differently than me. As long as all the action was being officiated and they communicated to me and my other partner they could do their own thing.

Understand that D1 officials and most college officials think on a higher level than the average HS official (sorry but it is true). What he was telling you was a way to survive in the game rather than be 100% correct based on rules and consistency which I feel we use as a crutch as HS officials. Consistency is wonderful but the problem is that all plays are not exact same and all situations are not the exact same. So what this clinician told you is not necessarily wrong and not necessarily right. It is what it is. That was his opinion on the play based on his personal experience and understanding of the game he was watching. The best thing you can do is think about the play, what the clinician told you and file it away for future reference and understanding. Even if you were there to learn and only learn, you need to understand that what you are told is to help you get better so your calls will be accepted. I would not take the comments any more than that.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Odd Duck

I would like your feedback on a comment given to my crew after a game at this past weekend's camp.

I am L...drive starts in the T's primary. Some contact on A1 (wearing white) when she reaches the lane, takes another step then stumbles and the ball goes OOB off her. I saw the contact but it was no more than we had been passing on since the start of the game. The T also passed on the contact. The C had an unubstructed view of the play and also passed. After the game (which blue won easily) the clinician said that the C should have had a whistle because A1 was obviously frustrated and, in their opinion, fouled immediately after the inbound that followed as a result of that frustration. He said "You need a game management call there to keep the level of frustration down. Blue was definitely going to win as they were up big. Give white the call there even though the contact was minor and as a crew you had been passing on it all game." I certainly understand the approach and have been thinking about it for quite a while. There were no incidents in the game and I think the clinician was making a point that we should be aware of the ramifications of a no-call and consider "throwing them a bone" (my words...not his) occassionally.

The question...which is more important, consistency throughout the game on what is a foul or making calls to keep a team from getting frustrated?

I have done this in games in the past, but not very often. I knew it was incinsistent with the rest of the game, but Coach A feels better. I've even had a coach or two on the winning team give me that look that he knows what I'm doing.

Would I do it again? Probably. In a blowout, the game can become to the point where the kids are having no fun and don't want to be there. That leads to shenanigans.

[zebraman]

Like Rut said, as referees go higher and higher in their level and ability, they take additional things into consideration when calling a game.

I didn't see the game, but I do agree with that philosophy in a blow-out game near the end. White has no chance to win the game. The contact by team B might have caused White to lose the ball. A lot of the "stupid things" that happen occur when a team is getting their butt kicked and they do them out of frustration. As you witnessed, giving the ball to blue led to a possible frustration situation.

So considering everything, what could go wrong if you called the foul? What could go wrong if you don't call the foul? The game has been decided and the only way that your game could end up on a bad note is if someone on Team A loses their cool right? IMO, call the foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

The OP stated that all three members of the crew passed on the marginal foul which did indeed cause the dribbler to stumble & lose the ball of off her person... disadvantage.

Agreed. Just because the level of contact had been passed on all night doesn't mean you have to pass on this one. Perhaps none of the others ultimatley created an advantage. This one appears to have caused the dribbler to actually lose the ball....advantage to the defense.

This is one of those that you can pass on until the player loses the ball. If the coach asks, I tell them that I was going to pass as long as the player kept control of the ball.

The timing of apparently minor contact can have very different degress of effect on a dribbler.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

If I was the L & awarded the ball to white (to get it right) would that be considered throwing white a bone? I mean the missed/passed foul caused the turnover right? A quick "baseline or a foul coach/player..." usually shuts 'em right up.

I can't agree completely. The only time I think this is viable is when the defender does have the hand on/near the ball around the same instant that the dribbler last touches the ball. If they're no where near the ball, forget it. It's not a credible call.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by zebraman

...as referees go higher and higher in their level and ability, they take additional things into consideration when calling a game...

Not taking a dig at zebraman here, but I think this more often works the other way around. Officials get to work higher levels as they learn to take additional things into consideration at the level they are currently working. YMMV

One of my mentors who works at a higher level than I has pointed out a similar consideration to what the clinician was saying. As an official your games will go better when you are aware of when a team/coach "needs a call." We strive to call the game objectively, but it's played very subjectively. That sometimes creates a "culture clash" between the officials and the participants; sometimes it can feel like the officials are just piling on. Unwarrated? Yes. Reality? To that frustrated team, yes. Not our problem? I think there's room for some discussion there.

Is it really "throwing a bone" to the losing team if there was an obvious foul and you call it? Even if you have been passing on similar all game? At the end of an obviously decided game is our goal still the same as when we started the game?

In my experience during blowouts you usually reach a point where the best thing for everybody involved is for the game to end, quietly. If a "bone" helps the losing team take their *** kicking quietly, that works for me.

Just my $0.02

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Not taking a dig at zebraman here, but I think this more often works the other way around. Officials get to work higher levels as they learn to take additional things into consideration at the level they are currently working. YMMV

No offense taken BITS. I meant the same thing.... you just worded it better.