Legal pick?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs... odds are there was a foul on SOMEONE...

But that's not my thought process at time of call... I'm more reacting to what happened in front of me.

I have seen that play several times where the screener does nothing illegal and a fouls should not be called. It is not about odds, it is about what happen on the play. And the NCAA has used plays like this as an example with legal screens and they did not want a foul.

Peace

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have seen that play several times where the screener does nothing illegal and a fouls should not be called.

Duh... If the screener does nothing wrong then of course it's not a foul. That wasn't the case in this situation.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not about odds, it is about what happen on the play. And the NCAA has used plays like this as an example with legal screens and they did not want a foul.
Peace

Yes we know. If the screen is legal they don't want a foul. It's not rocket science.

BTW I've included a link to a clip from the NCAA mandated clinic where they talk about this.

https://www.eofficials.com/controlpa...ontentID=41128

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Duh... If the screener does nothing wrong then of course it's not a foul. That wasn't the case in this situation.

Then stop telling people what needs to be called based on the violence of the contact. If it is a foul it is a foul. If it is not, it should be passed on. It is that simple. When you tell people that the violence of the contact has to be addressed and you are sending the wrong message. And that is the point and why I disagree with all this "game management" mess and "the game is going to get out of hand" crap.

BTW, I have seen the referenced and I have attended the meetings as well. I do not need a link to something I have already seen.

Peace

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then stop telling people what needs to be called based on the violence of the contact. If it is a foul it is a foul. If it is not, it should be passed on. It is that simple. When you tell people that the violence of the contact has to be addressed and you are sending the wrong message. And that is the point and why I disagree with all this "game management" mess and "the game is going to get out of hand" crap.

BTW, I have seen the referenced and I have attended the meetings as well. I do not need a link to something I have already seen.

Peace

Game management crap??? Hmmm I tend to think it's a very important part of my officiating duties on the floor. Hard fouls can lead to games getting out of hand. At least where I work. It's called retaliation and it's a very common thing.

So like I've said countless times this hard foul needs a whistle not only because it's a foul, but to control the game. That's game management in my book and "crap" in yours I guess.

As far as the link goes we all know you are the Grand Poo-bah of officiating. It was for others who may not have seen it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Game management crap??? Hmmm I tend to think it's a very important part of my officiating duties on the floor. Hard fouls can lead to games getting out of hand. At least where I work. It's called retaliation and it's a very common thing.

You do not base game management on one call. And often you do not use game management practices only on what you call once. Did you hear of a fight during this game?

Originally Posted by mu4scott

So like I've said countless times this hard foul needs a whistle not only because it's a foul, but to control the game. That's game management in my book and "crap" in yours I guess.

Then say it is a foul, what might happen as a result is not your concern. And if it is and you know how to officiate the entire game, you might not even need to call another foul. That might be a little over your head (sounds like it). Officials, whom pick one foul out of a game and start talking about game management, are the ones that really do not understand the concept. It is called “game management” not “one call management.”

We have no idea what happen before and no indication that anything got out of hand after the “non-call.” If you have such a link, then feel free to show evidence this game went into the tank (article, foul counts, technical fouls will all do).

Originally Posted by mu4scott

As far as the link goes we all know you are the Grand Poo-bah of officiating. It was for others who may not have seen it.

It is clear you know little or nothing about officiating, or you would not be talking about game management in the context you are. BTW, college officials already are fully aware of the links to these and it has been posted several times on this site. Did you just stumble on the site?

Peace

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

we all know you are the Grand Poo-bah of officiating.

[JRutledge]

I love the Flintstones.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs... odds are there was a foul on SOMEONE...

And I'm just saying that when contact like that occurs, there are NO odds involved. It either IS or it ISN'T a foul.

The "odds" are completely irrelevant when it comes to the decision that has to be made. Similarly, "game management" is completely irrelevant also to the play being discussed in this thread.

Even if your thoughts about the "odds" favoring a foul are correct, how would that be relevant or germane in any way to this particular play or any screening play for that matter? Even though the "odds" might say that it should be a foul, so what? Whatintheheck good will the "odds" do for you in the cases when there ISN'T a foul being committed?

Btw, what ARE the odds that there is a foul on someone when heavy contact occurs? 51%-49%? 99%-1%? Or should we take a poll every time it happens?

Jmo again, and I know that you must be getting sick of reading it, but you're over-thinking the hell outa this call. You simply "read and react". The hardest part to learn is what to look for in these type of screening situations....time and distance, verticality, moving/leaning, exaggerated stance, blind or not, foot in a boundary line, etc....and to do it in a hurry-up bang-bang type of situation. After you master those(and I'm not sure that we ever completely master them), you're doing yourself a dis-service by adding irrelevant factors to make what can be a tough call even tougher.

Btw, all JRut is doing is saying just about the exact same thing but in a different way. And he's not the only one doing so in this thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Yes we know. If the screen is legal they don't want a foul. It's not rocket science.

No, but when you add completely irrelevant factors to the call like hard screen, tied ball game, player injured, second half, star player, game management, what the coach/players/fans think, etc. etc., you're trying to make it into rocket science.

That's the point that people are trying to get through to you.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

No, but when you add completely irrelevant factors to the call like hard screen, tied ball game, player injured, second half, star player, game management, what the coach/players/fans think, etc. etc., you're trying to make it into rocket science.

That's the point that people are trying to get through to you.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I gave two cents what fans or players thought. However, I had better be able to explain what I called to a coach on certain plays.

In my opinion you have to be cognizant of your game situation. It's not all black and white all the time. You think those factors are irrelvent, I do not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Don't put words in my mouth.

You think those factors are irrelvent, I do not.

The words that came out of your mouth were "hard screen, tied ball game, player injured, second half". If you think that ANY of those factors are relevant in ANY call, so be it.

I won't waste any of your time...or mine...discussing it further.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The words that came out of your mouth were "hard screen, tied ball game, player injured, second half". If you think that ANY of those factors are relevant in ANY call, so be it.

I won't waste any of your time...or mine...discussing it further.

Your correct sir those words did come out of my mouth. The other part about fans, player and coaches did not. Some of you like to ad-lib in your rebuttles from time to time.

A no call here was unacceptable. Not only was it a foul. It was a hard screen during a tie ball game in the second half with a player injured in plain view of everyone in the building. Those reasons further accentuate the point as to why a whistle needed to be blown.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You do not base game management on one call. And often you do not use game management practices only on what you call once. Did you hear of a fight during this game?

You may not be able to base game management on one call, but you can certainly lose it on one call.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then say it is a foul, what might happen as a result is not your concern. And if it is and you know how to officiate the entire game, you might not even need to call another foul. That might be a little over your head (sounds like it).

Will somebody please translate this for me? I guess it's over my head because I progressed past 5th grade english class. I have no idea what you are saying, but I think it was if I call a foul correctly the players may realize I know how to call that and they won't do it again. Let me write that down in my rule book because I don't see it anywhere.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is clear you know little or nothing about officiating, or you would not be talking about game management in the context you are.
Peace

Just imagine how good I'll be once I do learn how to officiate.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Your correct sir those words did come out of my mouth. The other part about fans, player and coaches did not. Some of you like to ad-lib in your rebuttles from time to time.

A no call here was unacceptable. Not only was it a foul. It was a hard screen during a tie ball game in the second half with a player injured in plain view of everyone in the building. Those reasons further accentuate the point as to why a whistle needed to be blown.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I think it was if I call a foul correctly the players may realize I know how to call that and they won't do it again.

If it's not a foul in the first twenty seconds of a game, it's not a foul in the last twenty seconds A foul is a foul no matter when it occurs. How are the players suppose to know what to do in the second half during a tied ball game it has not been called that way the entire evening?

-Josh

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Your correct sir those words did come out of my mouth. The other part about fans, player and coaches did not. Some of you like to ad-lib in your rebuttles from time to time.

In your second post in this thread, post #26:

Originally Posted by mu4scott

We have a tie game at the 13:00 mark in the second half. If you whistle the offensive screener for an intentional their coach is going to be up your entire crew’s rear end the rest of the game. Any sort of action that’s even close to being intentional is going to be questioned. Also if this game stays close they are going to question any sort of blatant fouling at the end of the game.

So, yes, you were the one that mentioned coaches.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

It was a hard screen during a tie ball game in the second half with a player injured in plain view of everyone in the building. Those reasons further accentuate the point as to why a whistle needed to be blown.

And this is exactly what most of us have been commenting on - we should never blow the whistle because it's a hard screen, because someone's injured, because it's a tie game, or because the coach might get on our case. We should blow the whistle because a foul occured. It's a simple, but subtle difference.