That's not at all what is implied by BillyMac's statement. His statement says, "IF we haven't called it yet, THEN we won't call it now." The statement doesn't make any claim about what has or has not actually been called earlier in the game.

And that's exactly why it's a stoopid statement......

It might NOT have happened earlier in the game but Billy is saying not to call it anyway.

That's not what he is saying. In fact he fully eloborated on what he meant in his post. I believe this is what politicians and celebrities refer to when they say they were quoted out of context.

Yo, Bad News...

Why is it wrong to call an illegal screen in the last 30 seconds of a game if that illegal screen happened to be the <b>FIRST</b> illegal one set in that game? 'Splain that to me.

If you haven't called goaltending until the last 30 seconds, does that mean that you're not supposed to call it then?

JR, like it or not I heard the same philosophy being expoused during my camp-filled summer and each one of the camps I attended were camps where supervisors were looking to hire folks.

In the last 2 minutes they want calls that are obvious to everyone. Goaltendings tend to be obvious. Illegal screens sometimes aren't. In one camp game I called Team Control foul in the last minute of a tie game when a player shoved an off-ball defender in the back with 2 hands. In post game from the observer I was told I probably should have stayed away from that call b/c I was the only one who saw it.

I heard the pretty much the same thing when it came to illegal screens. If it's on the primary defender or a defender 1 pass away from the ball, that would be an obvious call. But if it's on the opposite of the court and has no immediate bearing on the play then they want you to lay off.

Because over the course of 31 minutes and 30 seconds, there have undoubtedly been dozens of borderline screens. If you haven't called any of those, then you better not call one now. If you've judged all those previous borderline screens to be incidental, then anything that's even close is going to be incidental.

If, on the other hand, you've let all the borderline screens go and then in the last 30 seconds, you get a guy who throws a great football block and the defender ends up on the floor 15 feet away, that's one that you can grab.

Hey badnewsref. Haven't talked to you in a while.

I understand the philosophy here but its hard for me to live with. Why should you not call a play that you would have called at any other point in the game.

There is a good quote that I write everywhere I go and it is: "players decide the outcome of games through legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."

I do agree with the principle of being careful on screens way away from the ball.

Sigh......

Reading is fundamental. I'm not talking about borderline, incidental crap and believe it or not I actually do have a basic understanding of what call consistency is. I'm talking about a situation where an obvious foul or violation has simply not come up in the game yet. Taking Billy's philosophy literally, you couldn't call that obvious foul or violation in the last 30 seconds if it hadn't happened before. That was my point. Iow, I don't think that you can make an all-encompassing statement like Billy made that is viable for <b>ALL</b> situations.

Instead of me answering News' post, put me down as agreeing with the above. The only addition/clarification might be that screens away from the ball still have to adjudicated by advantage/disadvantage, not ignored. If that off-ball illegal screen breaks someone open for a clear path to the hole and an easy pass for 2, you gotta call it.

Then we're in complete agreement. Part of Billy's comments (and mine, in my last post) state that if the foul is obvious, you call it. The reason I was talking about borderline/incidental calls was that they happen all the time during the game; and we don't call them. It would not be consistent (since you brought up "call consistency" :) ) to call a similar play at a point in the game where the teams cannot adjust.

Reading is fundamental. :D You stopped reading Billy's comments at the semi-colon. If you read the entire sentence -- "but if it puts somebody in the stands. . ." -- you can see that your last comment above is simply not true.

:rolleyes:

Those are NOT the plays anyone is referring to when they're saying don't call anything in the last 2 minutes that hasn't been called all game. The statement is a single-statement summary that is used to remind everyone to not change what you've been calling or not calling all game in the last 2 minutes without a 2 hour discussion. It has no bearing on calling something significant that hasn't previously occurred.

No, I sureasheck didn't ignore the last part of Billy's comments. It just wasn't...and isn't....relevant to the point I was trying to make imo.

You can have a play that hasn't taken place before in the game and is also <b>not</b> blatant in any way...but the play <b>does</b> give one team a definite unfair advantage. Just because that type of illegal play hasn't been made to now doesn't mean that you ignore it because it hasn't been called before, As I said, that was my point. That broad statement of Billy's may cover <b>most</b> possibilities but it does not cover <b>all</b> possibilities.

Better Wording Leads To Better Communication ...
 

Thanks for the input, both the constructive criticism, and those that agreed with me.

Let me elaborate. If the first play involving swinging elbows, or goaltending, or basket interference, or an intentional foul, etc., happens in the last thirty seconds of the game, again, it's the first time, neither my partner, or I , have even considered making these calls in the first 31:30, then we're calling it.

However, if both teams have been running motion offenses, and the screens we've seen in the first 31:30 have not been the best screens we've ever seen, nor have they been the worst screens that we've ever seen, in fact both my partner, and I, have deemed that these screens, while possibly, by the book, illegal, have not really put the opponents at any disadvantage, then we're not suddenly going to change our philosophy in the last thirty seconds and call, what we have passed on the rest of the game, an illegal screen, unless it puts the opponents at a bigger disadvantage then the "borderline" screens that we've seen in the past 31:30 that we've passed on.

Now, how can I word this in my pregame to make sure my partner understands what I mean?

Here's the way I have it worded now: " We’re not calling anything in the last two minutes if we haven’t already called it earlier in the game, unless it’s so blatant that it can’t be ignored. We don’t want our first illegal screen to be called with 30 seconds left in the game; but if the illegal screen puts a player into the first row of the bleachers, then we have to call it."

How can I word it better?

You can't. It says exactly what you mean, and it's exactly the way you should be calling the game.

Why? What if it happens to be the <b>first</b> illegal screen of that type in the game? And what if it's illegal by just grabbing the shirt of the screenee instead of making heavy contact? Are you really advocating ignoring something that gives the opposing a definite illegal advantage? How can you claim consistency if there was nothing that happened previously in that game to be consistent with?

Sorry, jmo but that's still completely ridiculous.