The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   End of game "let them play" (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/40503-end-game-let-them-play.html)

rainmaker Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick
Nope. Didn't.

Originally Posted by ABO77
At the end of a game a commonly heard philosophy is to "let the guys play". Just wondering if you guys change the way you call the game at the end...esp a close good game?

Yikes!! Well, I"m batting about 05% today. Guess I'll quit expounding. I did get the part about Star Trek yesterday right. ChessRef, it wasn't Data, though. It was Janeway and Chakotay.

So which Season 7 didn't you like, Scrappy? Voyager? TNG? DS9? or the original:eek: ?

Mark Padgett Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:37pm

I guess I just don't get it (so what's new?). I was taught to make the same call on the same type of play the same way from start to finish. If there hasn't been a 3 second call all game because it hasn't happened, and then it happens in the last minute of a close game, I'm going to call it because that's the rule. I'm not going to not call it because it wasn't "blatant". If I don't call it, I'm not being fair to the team on defense.

Remember, every time you give one team a break, you're penalizing the other team.

Y2Koach Thu Dec 20, 2007 01:30pm

I hear a lot of spectators/parents/fans saying stuff like "let the players decide the game"... well, if your player has slow feet and needs to use two hands to try to keep the offense player from getting to the basket, that player is deciding the game by fouling. Letting it go would be not allowing the offense from deciding the game by making his freethrows. If hand-checking and rough defensive pressure is allowed in the first half, why call ticky tack touch fouls at the end of the game because one team now wants to foul due to strategy? I wanted to fouls to be called in the first half due to strategy (get fouled, make freethrows)... I say let them play, but calling fouls and shooting freethrows are part of letting them play...

unless you deem calling fouls in the first half intentionally not letting them play...

JoeTheRef Thu Dec 20, 2007 01:37pm

Let Them Play! Let Them Play! Let Them Play!! Why does this remind me of Mike and Kelly Leak in the Houston Astrodome, then little Tanner Boyle making the security guards look stupid.. :D

Adam Thu Dec 20, 2007 01:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainmaker
Yikes!! Well, I"m batting about 05% today. Guess I'll quit expounding. I did get the part about Star Trek yesterday right. ChessRef, it wasn't Data, though. It was Janeway and Chakotay.

So which Season 7 didn't you like, Scrappy? Voyager? TNG? DS9? or the original:eek: ?

The original didn't go 7 seasons. :)

mick Thu Dec 20, 2007 01:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y2Koach
I hear a lot of spectators/parents/fans saying stuff like "let the players decide the game"... well, if your player has slow feet and needs to use two hands to try to keep the offense player from getting to the basket, that player is deciding the game by fouling. Letting it go would be not allowing the offense from deciding the game by making his freethrows. If hand-checking and rough defensive pressure is allowed in the first half, why call ticky tack touch fouls at the end of the game because one team now wants to foul due to strategy? I wanted to fouls to be called in the first half due to strategy (get fouled, make freethrows)... I say let them play, but calling fouls and shooting freethrows are part of letting them play...

unless you deem calling fouls in the first half intentionally not letting them play...

Sometimes, "letting them play" is heard due to the fact:
That one team in more physical and less skilled than another team (i.e., football players playing basktball against basketball player).
That the game is being called too tight by newer/younger officials.
That the teams are overly and illegally agressive, the teams are lacking skills and the game is already in the toilet so everyone wants to go home.

JRutledge Thu Dec 20, 2007 01:57pm

Sorry I am a little late to the party.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ABO77
At the end of a game a commonly heard philosophy is to "let the guys play". Just wondering if you guys change the way you call the game at the end...esp a close good game?

I am of the mindset that if you call things early that are blatant, you will not have to call many of those things later in the game. Usually that means I do not have to ignore much of anything. Or if I call something late, chances are we have called something similar earlier in the game and that call will be accepted on many levels.

Also understand that players tend to get out of control or are more aggressive at the end of the game as well. And often times people are just flying around and calling something at the end is more difficult.

Peace

blindzebra Thu Dec 20, 2007 02:52pm

If it's a foul the first minute, it's a foul the last minute.

The player that commits the foul or violation did decide the game.

Back In The Saddle Thu Dec 20, 2007 03:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Remember, every time you give one team a break, you're penalizing the other team.

This makes a great little sound bite. But as a mindset, it is really off-base. While we shouldn't set out to ignore fouls and violations, we shouldn't be in the business of looking for ways to give the other team the ball.

rainmaker Thu Dec 20, 2007 03:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
This makes a great little sound bite. But as a mindset, it is really off-base. While we shouldn't set out to ignore fouls and violations, we shouldn't be in the business of looking for ways to give the other team the ball.

You know he's not saying that, BITS, but the clarification might be helpful for some readers.

Chess Ref Thu Dec 20, 2007 03:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick
Sometimes, "letting them play" is heard due to the fact:
That the game is being called too tight by newer/younger officials.

From my personal experience and observations, the vast majority of new officials let way too much go. I include myself in that majority.

In my area we get alot of "football" schools and they will mug the other team till you stop it. They have lots of heart and muscle but minimal talent.

mick Thu Dec 20, 2007 03:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle
This makes a great little sound bite. But as a mindset, it is really off-base. While we shouldn't set out to ignore fouls and violations, we shouldn't be in the business of looking for ways to give the other team the ball.

I don't think Padgett was advising one way or another, I believe he was just wanting folks new be aware that once we deviate from the rules which advantages one team, then we are creating an equal and opposite disadvantage toward the opponent. I don't think it's even a 1/2-step off base.

mick Thu Dec 20, 2007 04:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chess Ref
From my personal experience and observations, the vast majority of new officials let way too much go. I include myself in that majority.

I agree with regard to new/rookie refs that it's hard to put air in the Fox.
I used newer/younger to describe 2-4 year officials that are starting to get into their books and are now soaking up "all the information" (knowing all the rules), but have not yet become familiar with incidental contact and flow interupters that don't need to be called. ;)

A Pennsylvania Coach Thu Dec 20, 2007 04:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I absolutely do. You think the first 3-seconds call of the night is going to be in the last 45 seconds of a 4 point game? No way -- unless it's blatant. He's been in there for 5 seconds and ignored a couple warnings and then gets the pass.

You think I'm calling the first illegal screen of the game in the last 2 minutes? No way. We've clearly let the borderline screens go all game. I'm going to call one now? Uh-uh. If there's a blatant illegal screen that bumps a guy 5 feet off the court to free up the shooter, then I'm grabbing that one.

I called the first (and only) FT violation of the night last night with 2:30 to play. Does that make me a bad person? Or would that only be if it happened 31 seconds later?

mick Thu Dec 20, 2007 04:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach
I called the first (and only) FT violation of the night last night with 2:30 to play. Does that make me a bad person? Or would that only be if it happened 31 seconds later?

Sometimes the players give you no choice, ...as long as the player clearly violated, ... blatantly, yer good. :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1