Critical Officiating article from a local news paper.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

A game interrupter is any valid/legitimate call you made but your supervisor/observer/evaluator says you should have passed on.

It's true, it's true......

Seriously!

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As near as I can tell, a "game interrupter" usually occurs when someone happens to disagree with a call that you just made.

Sounds like a pretty good definiton to me! Or maybe this is a better way to put it: "A game interrupter is any call made by a partner that I don't think was a good call." Had that one thrown at me a few times.

As far as the article goes - it's more whining by someone who sits in the stands and has absolutely no idea what we as officials are attempting to do and accoomplish during a game. But the mere fact that they sit there and watch a bunch of games from the stands gives them the knowledge and credibility needed to criticize the job we do. The mere fact that he supposedly found some coaches who agreed with him lends tremendous validity in his mind. Not worth the paper it was written on - imho.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I don't have a clue what the term means...mainly because I have never received a rational explanation or definition.

So....you've never suffered from gamus interruptus - AT YOUR AGE!!!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

So....you've never suffered from gamus interruptus - AT YOUR AGE!!!!

Do you think that I'd admit it if I did?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you think that I'd admit it if I did?

Not to your assignor, but maybe on Springer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jeff, so far I've received about 3 or 4 different explanations of what a "game interrupter" is supposed to be. There seems to be different explanations, for some reason.

I also have never received an answer to as to what call that we make isn't a game interrupter. Every time we blow the whistle, we interrupt the game, stop the flow, whatever.

So yes, I really am not sure exactly what a "game interrupter" is supposed to be. And I have yet to have anyone that uses the term give me a definition of it that is plausible.

As near as I can tell, a "game interrupter" usually occurs when someone happens to disagree with a call that you just made.

A game interrupter is no more than something that probably did not need to be called. That does not apply to any one situation or call. What is actually a game interrupter is going to change from one official to another because judgment is always going to apply. That is no different than what I might call good judgment and you might call bad judgment. There is no put in the bank description that you are going to get. And I know you are smart enough to realize that. You just do not seem to like the term which is certainly OK with me. Many things in officiating are very subjective when it comes to how you enforce certain rules or what judgments you make. And how people interpret things like this is no different.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

I'll go with the definition of a game interrupter as a call that someone disagrees with but is either not sure why or is too lazy to figure out why. It's not an awfully bad terribly hideous call, it's a call that for some reason just doesn't sit well with the person making the observation. IOW it's what we used to call a cop out - a word that really doesn't say what we mean. If it's your partner making the observation then it's a call that he won't call at a later point for crew consistency... IOW he's gonna hang you out to dry rather than make the same potentially borderline call he might disagree with. If it's your assigner then it's a call that he fears might get a coach thinking he needs to call him and complain about. Again, not awfully bad but a just sorta kinda borderline call that a damn good referee would never make because he knows better. And what he knows better is to not make calls his partners won't have the guts to back him up on or calls that may get him a call from the boss.

So if someone tells you your call was a game interrupter then do as JR does: ask why. And don't take "because" as an answer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'll go with the definition of a game interrupter as a call that someone disagrees with but is either not sure why or is too lazy to figure out why. It's not an awfully bad terribly hideous call, it's a call that for some reason just doesn't sit well with the person making the observation. IOW it's what we used to call a cop out - a word that really doesn't say what we mean. If it's your partner making the observation then it's a call that he won't call at a later point for crew consistency... IOW he's gonna hang you out to dry rather than make the same potentially borderline call he might disagree with. If it's your assigner then it's a call that he fears might get a coach thinking he needs to call him and complain about. Again, not awfully bad but a just sorta kinda borderline call that a damn good referee would never make because he knows better. And what he knows better is to not make calls his partners won't have the guts to back him up on or calls that may get him a call from the boss.

So if someone tells you your call was a game interrupter then do as JR does: ask why. And don't take "because" as an answer.

I have never heard anyone not be willing to give the "why" part of the term. And I have never heard a coach ever use this in conversation because this is not apart of there vernacular or jargon. The team is more than "I do not like the call."

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have never heard anyone not be willing to give the "why" part of the term. And I have never heard a coach ever use this in conversation because this is not apart of there vernacular or jargon. The team is more than "I do not like the call."

Peace

I have really never heard the why part amount to more than it's a game interrupter because it interrupted the game, more or less. Whatever that means.

I too have never heard a coach use this term. I'm not saying a coach will call an assigner and say I called a game interrupter. I'm saying the coach will call the assigner and say I sucked and that he's gonna mail him the tape. And the assigner will have to look at the tape and say no, he didn't suck, but he'll waste a haf hour in the process.

btw, this is all not to say that there are not borderline calls that need to be discussed. What I'm saying is 'game interruper' is an over used under defined term that means different things to different people. IOW it is useless.

[just another ref]

I think perhaps that the "game interrupter" thing started with a little insignificant call such as the guy in the high post with his heel touching the line 3 second call. The trouble is that it has grown exponentially in every direction. Now we hear more and more: "We don't call that." A little shuffle of the feet, a slight hesitation of the ball in the hand on a crossover, a defender's hand lightly on the hip, and then all these little things get bigger and bigger. More and more black and white areas are being replaced with various shades of gray.

"Technically, that might have been a (insert name of foul/violation here), but we don't call that." So if you and I do call that, it is dismissed with a wave of the hand and a label: game interrupter.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I think perhaps that the "game interrupter" thing started with a little insignificant call such as the guy in the high post with his heel touching the line 3 second call. The trouble is that it has grown exponentially in every direction. Now we hear more and more: "We don't call that." A little shuffle of the feet, a slight hesitation of the ball in the hand on a crossover, a defender's hand lightly on the hip, and then all these little things get bigger and bigger. More and more black and white areas are being replaced with various shades of gray.

"Technically, that might have been a (insert name of foul/violation here), but we don't call that." So if you and I do call that, it is dismissed with a wave of the hand and a label: game interrupter.

I think this is a pretty good take. It started as the 3-second count example you gave, or the borderline carry called while the PG was dribbling near half-court with no pressure, then it grew into the borderline foul call when the defender was beat, or the tough travel in the post when the player didn't gain an advantage, and now it's used to describe anything a coach or player or other official doesn't think should be called "for the good of the game."

It doesn't mean anything - or it means everything - but bottom line is it's a useless term because everyone looks at it differently and has a different perspective. The "concept" is fine, but everyone operates from a different definition, so it is useless in a real conversation.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I don't have a clue what the term means...mainly because I have never received a rational explanation or definition.

What calls are you talking about when you say they have minimal impact on the game and thus can be be passed on?

Big surprise, I have a dfferent idea of "gamus interruptus". Yes, a partner or observer may not like the call, but I find that term is used when a non-obvious call is made that one team just hates, which takes time for the calling official or crew to unsuccessfully explain. That dead ball time during these situations seems to run long, and hence is an "interruptor". Doesn't mean the call is wrong. Dead ball time is usually not a great time for officials.

A bad call is just a bad call. I've never heard the game interruptor as an excuse for not saying someone thought a call was wrong. You just get the "minus" or dreaded "double-minus" on the sheet for that whistle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

...then it grew into the borderline foul call when the defender was beat...

You know, this one actually seems like a bad call rather than a "game interrupter." If it's borderline contact and the defender got beat, looks like no advantage to me. No advantage on borderline contact = no foul. Pretty easy to explain to a new guy why he shouldn't have called it. Use the rule book, it's pretty clear.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What I'm saying is 'game interrupter' is an over used under defined term that means different things to different people. IOW it is useless.

Bingo!

[BktBallRef]

What the hell is hopping?