If you are the R

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TD21

I have a question about this, since it seems so common place and needed to me. Are there that many officials out there that don't know foul counts, time on the clock, directional arrow, what the teams are running and what the players on the floor can and can't do? I would think that officiating a game like this would be like doing taxes without have W-2's 1099's and not knowing how to add. It can't be done correctly if you don't have all the information and you don't know how to use it. This information, in my opinion is just as important as knowing the rules and how to apply them. I'm not saying you need to do all this stuff to get through a game, but I am saying that you should be aware of these things if you want officiate the game the right way. It helps so much.

Some information can be useful to an official. That certainly might include time left on the clock, what the teams are running and what the players can do, as well as other things. Knowing who has the arrow is only relevant if you mistrust your table personnel to properly keep track. Some information however is NEVER needed to officiate a game properly. That information includes how many fouls each player has committed. Knowing that information is of absolutely no value to an official ever imo.

Does that answer your question?

Btw, how would knowing how many fouls a player has help you officiate the "right" way?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw, how would knowing how many fouls a player has help you officiate the "right" way?

If you're scared of fouling out the star player on a call the whole gym doesn't agree with? There could be another reason, I just can't think of it.

[TD21]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If you're scared of fouling out the star player on a call the whole gym doesn't agree with? There could be another reason, I just can't think of it.

I think I might get myself in more trouble here but I'm gonna do it anyway, since I know a few will understand and even agree with me. Here's an example of why knowledge of fouls and knowing your players/match-ups is important. Let's say two teams are playing each other and each has a great center to compete against each other with neither team having a player that comes off the bench to match up against the other teams opposing center. Now imaging if early in the game, let's say 2 minutes in one center gets a foul called on him. Two trips down the floor later the defending post player, who already has one foul, is fronting with no backside help. The guard sees this and lobs the ball into him. As the offensive post tries to get the ball the defender holds him. Not much but just enough to slow him down in getting to the ball. What are you going to call? This is a foul right? What happens if that offensive player still catches the ball and dunks it uncontested? Are you still happy with your call, 2:30 into the game that puts one teams center on the bench and leaves his team helpless to defend the post? Now if he prevents the offensive player from catching the ball, easy call foul. But since he doesn't now you've got a decision to make. If every foul is a foul, then you call a foul and put that teams best player and only chance to defend the post on the bench and say "sorry coach, a foul is a foul and your player fouled him so now he sits" while the coach is screaming at you saying "how is that a foul? how did it affect the play? He caught the ball and dunked it for christs' sake!!!" Now you might even have to T him. But what importance is knowledge of personal fouls? You see all of actions have reactions and coaches do have some knowledge of what is going on and how we affect the game. So the idea that a foul is a foul is a foul isn't a great concept. I'm sure I'm gonna get all kinds of heat for this but here goes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TD21

If every foul is a foul, then you call a foul and put that teams best player and only chance to defend the post on the bench and say "sorry coach, a foul is a foul and your player fouled him so now he sits" while the coach is screaming at you saying "how is that a foul? how did it affect the play? He caught the ball and dunked it for christs' sake!!!" Now you might even have to T him. But what importance is knowledge of personal fouls? You see all of actions have reactions and coaches do have some knowledge of what is going on and how we affect the game. So the idea that a foul is a foul is a foul isn't a great concept.

The day that you stop worrying about what coaches think will be the day that you start learning how to become an official.


Or not....

[TD21]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The day that you stop worrying about what coaches think will be the day that you start learning how to become an official.


Or not....

I've heard this quote before and it is usually from an official who has been around awhile. I respect veteran officials and listen to what they have to say. Some stuff I use other stuff I don't. But in the case of worrying what coaches think? It's not being worried, its knowing how they are going to react. Just like you know how some partners are going to call the game and you have to adjust for that. Or knowing how players are going to play and you have to adjust for that. The coaches are no different. No two games are the same. And if you think you can go out there and treat every game the same then that is your right. I don't work that way. Different games bring different situation, different match-ups. Just like certain calls bring certain reactions from certain coaches. Knowing your personnel, as we've talked about, is very important. I never said I would anything about worrying about what the coach think. I just know how they will react in certain situation. The more information you have the better you can handle the situation. If you are prepared then you more than ready when these situations arise. Now if you want to say that is worrying about what a coach thinks go ahead. I call it preventative officiating. Some can see situations coming before they happen, and take care of it while others never see them coming and don't know how to handle them when they do.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by TD21

I've heard this quote before and it is usually from an official who has been around awhile. I respect veteran officials and listen to what they have to say. Some stuff I use other stuff I don't. But in the case of worrying what coaches think? It's not being worried, its knowing how they are going to react. Just like you know how some partners are going to call the game and you have to adjust for that. Or knowing how players are going to play and you have to adjust for that. The coaches are no different. No two games are the same. And if you think you can go out there and treat every game the same then that is your right. I don't work that way. Different games bring different situation, different match-ups. Just like certain calls bring certain reactions from certain coaches. Knowing your personnel, as we've talked about, is very important. I never said I would anything about worrying about what the coach think. I just know how they will react in certain situation. The more information you have the better you can handle the situation. If you are prepared then you more than ready when these situations arise. Now if you want to say that is worrying about what a coach thinks go ahead. I call it preventative officiating. Some can see situations coming before they happen, and take care of it while others never see them coming and don't know how to handle them when they do.

Knowing that a player has 4 fouls or you are cmoing down the stretch in a tight game can provide impetus for consciously-intense focus. I am sure that everyone here is at maximum focus at all times, but the study of psychology dictates otherwise. If I know a player, particularly a star player, has 4 fouls, or we are late in a tight game, I will be conscious of having "high certainty" on every whistle I blow. That means fouls are fouls, but borderline events probably won't be. My intent would be that all whistles in that situation would be pretty obvious to everyone. "High certainty" and not guessing are always our intent and goal, but in these two situations, executinng them is what makes officials great.

BTW, coaches select the post-season officials in every college conference I work. Coaches and AD's also had 100% of the input to selecting playoff officials when I worked HS post-season games. Offiicals not caring about coaches at all is like a playwright not being concerned with theater goers. It may be a noble idea, but you'll starve yourself making what you and your cronies perceive as great works, while "sellouts" wind up on Broadway. Those opinions are not wrong: Bob Dylan did just fine with it. But those are the rare exceptions, not the rule. Think about it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

BTW, coaches select the post-season officials in every college conference I work. Coaches and AD's also had 100% of the input to selecting playoff officials when I worked HS post-season games.

Okay, now it's my turn to call Bull Sh!t.
I'm not aware of any state that gives coaches and ADs 100% of the decision power on post-season assignments. Perhaps someone else can verify.

Nor was I aware of any college conference who selected their postseason officials this way. But, again, perhaps someone else can verify or discredit this statement.

In the meantime, it doesn't pass my BS detector.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

BTW, coaches select the post-season officials in every college conference I work. Coaches and AD's also had 100% of the input to selecting playoff officials when I worked HS post-season games.

Yes, Old School, you've told us all about that before. And you're just as believable with your new nom de net.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TD21

It's not being worried, its knowing how they are going to react. Just like you know how some partners are going to call the game and you have to adjust for that. Or knowing how players are going to play and you have to adjust for that. The coaches are no different.

The day that you stop worrying about how coaches react to one of your calls is the day that you start learning how to become an official. Obviously, in your case that day hasn't arrived yet.

You NEVER adjust your play-calling to account for a coach's anticipated reaction. You call the game without worrying about how ANYONE -players, coaches, fans, etc.- will react to one of your calls.

Officiating isn't a popularity contest.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The day that you stop worrying about what coaches think will be the day that you start learning how to become an official.


Or not....

I will work two games tomorrow where I have two coaches and teams that I have some knowledge and history with. It is not necessarily a bad history, but I had one of the teams less than a week ago and they lost. I will also have this team two more times and in less than a week is the first one outside of this tournament. I guarantee you I will discuss this with my partners. It will clearly be apart of our pre-game because I do not want my partner's to be blindsided if a coach goes off about me or because I have this history. There is likely not to be any problems, but they need to know I have had this coach a few times and some of that history. That knowledge is valuable to my partner's and would be to me if I knew a coach and a particular official had some history. That knowledge might help us head off a potential problem later in the game before it has time to stew. This is not different than knowing a coach is a legend and that coach has a history of threatening officials. You might know that coach is full of smoke or that they tend to threaten them during the game so if you T the coach, we (the officials) all know why.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TD21

Let's say two teams are playing each other and each has a great center to compete against each other with neither team having a player that comes off the bench to match up against the other teams opposing center. Now imaging if early in the game, let's say 2 minutes in one center gets a foul called on him. Two trips down the floor later the defending post player, who already has one foul, is fronting with no backside help. The guard sees this and lobs the ball into him. As the offensive post tries to get the ball the defender holds him. Not much but just enough to slow him down in getting to the ball. What are you going to call? This is a foul right? What happens if that offensive player still catches the ball and dunks it uncontested? Are you still happy with your call, 2:30 into the game that puts one teams center on the bench and leaves his team helpless to defend the post? Now if he prevents the offensive player from catching the ball, easy call foul. But since he doesn't now you've got a decision to make. If every foul is a foul, then you call a foul and put that teams best player and only chance to defend the post on the bench and say "sorry coach, a foul is a foul and your player fouled him so now he sits" while the coach is screaming at you saying "how is that a foul? how did it affect the play? He caught the ball and dunked it for christs' sake!!!" Now you might even have to T him. But what importance is knowledge of personal fouls? You see all of actions have reactions and coaches do have some knowledge of what is going on and how we affect the game. So the idea that a foul is a foul is a foul isn't a great concept. I'm sure I'm gonna get all kinds of heat for this but here goes.

If the parts in red are matters of consideration for what is a foul for you, I consider this to be problem.

[TD21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the parts in red are matters of consideration for what is a foul for you, I consider this to be problem.

The only problem here is that you don't understand simple concepts. We've already established that you are a lower level official, by your own admission, so it is evident that you don't understand the concepts being told to you. If you don't want to learn and move up then don't. My call selection isn't the problem, its the fact that no body want to learn the way thinks work in the world of officiating these days. The old concepts and ideas are disappearing. There are new ways of doing things that are studied and used by college officials that can also help high school officials. If you don't want to catch on and learn them then don't, but don't tell us that we are wrong because ou've never heard of them or can't apply them to your game

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by TD21

The only problem here is that you don't understand simple concepts. We've already established that you are a lower level official, by your own admission, so it is evident that you don't understand the concepts being told to you. If you don't want to learn and move up then don't. My call selection isn't the problem, its the fact that no body want to learn the way thinks work in the world of officiating these days. The old concepts and ideas are disappearing. There are new ways of doing things that are studied and used by college officials that can also help high school officials. If you don't want to catch on and learn them then don't, but don't tell us that we are wrong because ou've never heard of them or can't apply them to your game

You seem like a reasonable fellow. Let me try talking to you in plain language.
Our other esteemed associate answers direct questions by launching off on a tangent in another random direction. When you talk of giving consideration to the one on one match-up and the fact that one player already has one or more fouls when considering the next call, do you not consider that to be giving that player an advantage, or are you telling me that it is an advantage but that is just the way things are/must be/should be done at the "next level?"

[TD21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You seem like a reasonable fellow. Let me try talking to you in plain language.
Our other esteemed associate answers direct questions by launching off on a tangent in another random direction. When you talk of giving consideration to the one on one match-up and the fact that one player already has one or more fouls when considering the next call, do you not consider that to be giving that player an advantage, or are you telling me that it is an advantage but that is just the way things are/must be/should be done at the "next level?"

I never once said if its a foul but he already has one don't call it. I said according to some here, using the foul is a foul no matter how many a player has or what the situation is, its a foul. My point to all of this was in situation such as this, when you have match ups and a player has a certain number of fouls and his next one will put him on the bench you should, for the good of the game, make sure it is a good foul. Calling a second foul 2 and half minutes into a game on a center who grabs a players arm for a second but doesn't prevent that player from getting to the ball and dunking it is a bad foul call. If he prevent the player from getting the ball its a foul, nothing I can do to help him out. Do we make judgements based on who the player is and what the situation is? Of course we do. If you say we don't then you just don't get it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TD21

My call selection isn't the problem, its the fact that no body want to learn the way thinks work in the world of officiating these days. The old concepts and ideas are disappearing. There are new ways of doing things that are studied and used by college officials that can also help high school officials. If you don't want to catch on and learn them then don't, but don't tell us that we are wrong because you've never heard of them or can't apply them to your game

We? Who is "we"?

The problem is that you're presenting your opinion only. That's fine. No problem with that. Everybody is entitled to present their own opinion. Do not try to equate your opinion as being commonly accepted by anybody else though. In my experience, it isn't. Do not try to intimate that your opinion is fact either. In my experience, it's about as far from being a fact as you can get.