Legal pick?

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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

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

I said if you called that intentional the coach would be up the crews butt the rest of the game. I didn't say one word about if I cared what fans, players or coaches thought.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

I've never said it should be a foul based solely on the fact that hard contact occurs. IN THIS PLAY....... Their was a foul w/ very hard contact. All the more reason to have a whistle.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by jdmara

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

More black and white officiating. That's not good game management.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

More black and white officiating. That's not good game management.

Not good game management but I've never had a problem either. Maybe it's because I'm consistent throughout the game and everyone knows that it's a foul from the outset of the contest. It makes sense why my phone is constantly ringing for games I guess

Since we are worried about explaining fouls to a coach, it's a lot easier to say "Coach, I called the exact same foul in the first quarter. The screener must be set and give proper distance on a blind screen." (Not referring to the OP) How is a coach going to argue?

-Josh

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

>font color = red> 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 NONE of those reasons listed individually or collectively above are necessary or mandatory in any way, shape or form to actually have a foul. Not one! Every single one of your above listed reasons is completely irrelevant in determining whether any screen is legal or illegal.

And furthermore,if you do have a hard LEGAL screen during a tie game in the second half with a player injured in plain view of everyone in the building, and if you still think that any of those factors is any reason at all why a whistle needs to be blown, then you should be up in the stands or on the bench. You sureashell shouldn't be on the court with a whistle in your mouth.

Btw, if you're not worried about fans, players and coaches, why would "in plain view of everyone in the building" have any relevance at all to that call? Every single call that we make might be in "plain view of everyone in the building. Who cares? You keep saying that you don't care what coaches/fans think but you also seem to be still worrying about it though.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

More black and white officiating. That's not good game management.

You're using "black and white officiating" as an excuse to strengthen your own view of the situation. It's an age-old tactic of people who are unable to argue on merit alone. Try something else.

Oh wait, I see that you did try something else. Now everybody that disagrees with you doesn't have "good game management". Sorry, but imo you wouldn't know what "good game management" was if it jumped up and bit you on the azz. You don't have a clue what the term actually means or what the concept is.

Again, jmo, like it or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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

Was there a fight in this game? Did the game get out of hand? It sounds like to me that they got through it without much incident and nothing was called. Funny how things like that take place. (And I am sure that went completely over your head).

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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.

I know it is difficult to understand logic for you. You might have progressed pass 5th grade English, but you have not progressed passed Junior High Philosophy. If you cannot understand that this is just one call in one game without trying to add factors the game that are completely irrelevant then you might understand something.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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

When you realize you can call a foul without all the other BS concerns, then you will learn how to officiate. It either is a foul or it is not a foul. Who gives a damn about the situation on a play like this? Once again, the official on this game passed and I never heard of a game between these two teams turning into a fight. I guess this no-call was good game management.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I said if you called that intentional the coach would be up the crews butt the rest of the game. I didn't say one word about if I cared what fans, players or coaches thought.

Huh? So, again, what does it matter what a coach will do or not do in whether or not to call the foul? If my partner calls an intentional on that play, I might not necessarily agree with it, but I can see the logic behind it due to the screener possibly "stepping into" the screen and putting the other player down. However, I'm going to tell him/her I didn't think it was intentional because it wasn't neutralizing an obviously advantageous position, it wasn't meant to stop the clock, and it wasn't excessive contact on the ballhandler. I am not going to tell my partner it was a bad call because now the coach is going to be on our butt the rest of the game. Do you see the difference in the reasoning?

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I've never said it should be a foul based solely on the fact that hard contact occurs. IN THIS PLAY....... Their was a foul w/ very hard contact. All the more reason to have a whistle.

This is where communication is a great tool, both in dealing with coaches and players, and dealing with some of us. I don't believe we disagree with whether the play should be called a foul, we are disagreeing in why it should be called. So far, most of your communication on this play has been about "game management" and a "hard screen during a tie ballgame in the second half". If you mean to say "illegal screen", then why don't you just communicate that, instead of saying "hard screen"? If I'm the opposing coach, and you come over and tell me the reason you called the foul was because it was a hard screen and the player's injured, I might just go (legitimately) ballistic on you because there is nothing in the rules that says a hard screen is illegal. So even though you made the proper call, you will still have to use your game management skills to either penalize my team or send me home early.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Huh? So, again, what does it matter what a coach will do or not do in whether or not to call the foul? If my partner calls an intentional on that play, I might not necessarily agree with it, but I can see the logic behind it due to the screener possibly "stepping into" the screen and putting the other player down. However, I'm going to tell him/her I didn't think it was intentional because it wasn't neutralizing an obviously advantageous position, it wasn't meant to stop the clock, and it wasn't excessive contact on the ballhandler. I am not going to tell my partner it was a bad call because now the coach is going to be on our butt the rest of the game. Do you see the difference in the reasoning?


This is where communication is a great tool, both in dealing with coaches and players, and dealing with some of us. I don't believe we disagree with whether the play should be called a foul, we are disagreeing in why it should be called. So far, most of your communication on this play has been about "game management" and a "hard screen during a tie ballgame in the second half". If you mean to say "illegal screen", then why don't you just communicate that, instead of saying "hard screen"? If I'm the opposing coach, and you come over and tell me the reason you called the foul was because it was a hard screen and the player's injured, I might just go (legitimately) ballistic on you because there is nothing in the rules that says a hard screen is illegal. So even though you made the proper call, you will still have to use your game management skills to either penalize my team or send me home early.

Remember he has passed 5th Grade English and he does not know how to tell a coach, "I had an illegal screen." Or if he did not call anything, "The screen was legal in my judgment coach." Something tells me that is what the official told the coach.

I had a similar play take place in a game of mine and I had the coach yelling at his players about how it was there fault that this player got hurt. And he was mad because his team was not communicating to each other and calling out screens. He never said a word to us about what he missed or did not call. Funny, the game went on without any problems. I wonder how that happened.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

This is the worst thread on OF ever!

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Was there a fight in this game? Did the game get out of hand? It sounds like to me that they got through it without much incident and nothing was called. Funny how things like that take place. (And I am sure that went completely over your head).


I know it is difficult to understand logic for you. You might have progressed pass 5th grade English, but you have not progressed passed Junior High Philosophy. If you cannot understand that this is just one call in one game without trying to add factors the game that are completely irrelevant then you might understand something.


When you realize you can call a foul without all the other BS concerns, then you will learn how to officiate. It either is a foul or it is not a foul. Who gives a damn about the situation on a play like this? Once again, the official on this game passed and I never heard of a game between these two teams turning into a fight. I guess this no-call was good game management.

Peace

One last time.

1) There was an illegal screen on this play. A whistle should have been blown. The "T" official was in error.

2) From a "Game Management" standpoint I feel this play needed a whistle. I'm not going to pass on fouls like this ever. By passing on this call, this game or any game could have the possibility to get out of hand.

3) Pile on me all you want. I come here to learn, but I'm also not going to back down from what I think is right and what I have learned. My philosophy has worked for me so far and it seems to be right in line w/ others who I pattern my game after.

Not everything is black and white. I'm not going to get into this debate right now, but end of game situations are a glaring example of it.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I had a similar play take place in a game of mine and I had the coach yelling at his players about how it was there fault that this player got hurt. And he was mad because his team was not communicating to each other and calling out screens.

Wow, interesting point of view!

As a coach you tend to think of this more in the frontcourt during set plays, in man-to-man coverage vs the backcourt!

Pick, left! PICK, left!! PICK, LEFT!!! BAMM!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

One last time.

1) There was an illegal screen on this play. A whistle should have been blown. The "T" official was in error.

2) From a "Game Management" standpoint I feel this play needed a whistle. I'm not going to pass on fouls like this ever. By passing on this call, this game or any game could have the possibility to get out of hand.

3) Pile on me all you want. I come here to learn, but I'm also not going to back down from what I think is right and what I have learned. My philosophy has worked for me so far and it seems to be right in line w/ others who I pattern my game after.

Not everything is black and white. I'm not going to get into this debate right now, but end of game situations are a glaring example of it.

If you come here to learn, you have a lot to learn.

Also understand that many of the people that disagree with you completely believe in the concept of game management. The problem is you are too stubborn to understand how they apply the logic.

This is also not a black and white discussion. Actually the only person making this conversation black and white is you. People have challenged your position on "game management" and you will not budge off of that logic. And you were not even astute enough to realize that I subscribe to game management philosophies, but disagree with how that applies on this situation.

If you want to keep taking about this be my guest. But this is two times you have made a complicated issue into a very narrow situation with a narrow solution. Now I know.

Peace

[Tio]

Why can't an official come here to learn? I learn a lot from hearing how other officials handled rare situations and asking for feedback. The day I can't learn anything more about the craft is the day I quit.

I don't think any official who uses this board has the right to question another's intentions. We are all on the same team, a brotherhood. I bet coaches come to this board for entertainment to see all of the in-fighting.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Tio

Why can't an official come here to learn? I learn a lot from hearing how other officials handled rare situations and asking for feedback. The day I can't learn anything more about the craft is the day I quit.

I don't think any official who uses this board has the right to question another's intentions. We are all on the same team, a brotherhood. I bet coaches come to this board for entertainment to see all of the in-fighting.

I think you are doing the very same thing your friend is doing. You are reacting to something you did not actually read.

And I do not care what coach's thing about what we say here either.

Peace

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Tio

Why can't an official come here to learn?

Who said anyone couldn't come here to learn? You took his comment way out of context. He never said anything remotely close to that.

When someone's opinion is overwhelmingly disagreed with as much as mu4scott's has been, there's a good chance he might want to take a step back and learn something from the discussion rather than continue to argue.