players with 4 fouls

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by summdawg76

I will be the black sheep.

I think you need to be aware about who has 4 fouls. If you fouled out the only kid that can dribble the ball for that team, trouble is soon behind. It better be one heck of a foul. Game management skills still have to carry some weight in the game.
I am not saying you ignore obvious advantage gains, but preventive officiating can make the game smother.

Gotta tell ya' - this is so wrong I hardly know where to start. First of all, we don't "foul anyone out". The players commit the fouls, we only point them out when they happen. If "the only player who can dribble the ball for a team" fouls out, why is that the official's concern? If he was so valuable to that team, he shouldn't have committed so many fouls. The responsibility is his, not ours. And saying it "better be one heck of a foul" is ridiculous. It "better meet" exactly the same standard you've used for every other foul you've called that game - no more and no less. This is not preventative officiating - it's poor officiating.

Don't mean to sound vindictive, but we've gone over having this attitude numerous times here.

[Kelvin green]

Game awareness does matter.

When I can look at a book (upside down) I can tell who has three fouls/four fouls.... Does it make a difference in the way I call a game not really but if I know a player has 4, I am more ready when the player gets the 5th.... especially if I know shirts will come out or other dumb things to prevent a T. or other issues on the floor....

[JRutledge]

If a foul takes place and you have been calling that foul all game long, then call the foul regardless of when it took place or who committed the foul. If you know a player has 4 fouls, all I would suggest is make the foul be there and do not call a foul that is totally suspect. I know I have called fouls early in games that I regret or did not like and I try not to make that same mistake later in the game. The 5th foul whether you like it or not is going to be a more scrutinized call than the first 4 fouls. And when it is a star, it is even more scrutinized. Call what you see and you can hardly ever be wrong. But to be completely unaware of a situation is not as smart too in my opinion.

Peace

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a foul takes place and you have been calling that foul all game long, then call the foul regardless of when it took place or who committed the foul. If you know a player has 4 fouls, all I would suggest is make the foul be there and do not call a foul that is totally suspect. I know I have called fouls early in games that I regret or did not like and I try not to make that same mistake later in the game. The 5th foul whether you like it or not is going to be a more scrutinized call than the first 4 fouls. And when it is a star, it is even more scrutinized. Call what you see and you can hardly ever be wrong. But to be completely unaware of a situation is not as smart too in my opinion.

Peace

Well said, basically my take on things. There are many layers to this topic.

[summdawg76]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a foul takes place and you have been calling that foul all game long, then call the foul regardless of when it took place or who committed the foul. If you know a player has 4 fouls, all I would suggest is make the foul be there and do not call a foul that is totally suspect. I know I have called fouls early in games that I regret or did not like and I try not to make that same mistake later in the game. The 5th foul whether you like it or not is going to be a more scrutinized call than the first 4 fouls. And when it is a star, it is even more scrutinized. Call what you see and you can hardly ever be wrong. But to be completely unaware of a situation is not as smart too in my opinion.

Peace

How did I miss reading this one? This is exactly my point.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Game awareness does matter.

When I can look at a book (upside down) I can tell who has three fouls/four fouls.... Does it make a difference in the way I call a game not really but if I know a player has 4, I am more ready when the player gets the 5th.... especially if I know shirts will come out or other dumb things to prevent a T. or other issues on the floor....

Could you explain a bit more what you mean here?

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Could you explain a bit more what you mean here?

Prevent a T.... If you know he/she is frustrated you may be able to pay attention and get to them early before they have time to do something stupid that we need to deal with...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Prevent a T.... If you know he/she is frustrated you may be able to pay attention and get to them early before they have time to do something stupid that we need to deal with...

Kelvin:

Knowing whether a player does or does not have four fouls has nothing to do with the scenario you just painted. The official should always be aware of possible problems with a player's attitude, THAT is game awareness, not knowing whether or not he has four fouls.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

So when you did not know player "X" has 4 fouls, I am not sure how you would know to be "preventative" in an outburst?

Peace

[just another ref]

This whole line of thinking is thin, at best, IMO. Some players foul out every night and smile the whole time. Others are an outburst waiting to happen when they foul, when they get fouled, or any other time.

[summdawg76]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Gotta tell ya' - this is so wrong I hardly know where to start. First of all, we don't "foul anyone out". The players commit the fouls, we only point them out when they happen. If "the only player who can dribble the ball for a team" fouls out, why is that the official's concern? If he was so valuable to that team, he shouldn't have committed so many fouls. The responsibility is his, not ours. And saying it "better be one heck of a foul" is ridiculous. It "better meet" exactly the same standard you've used for every other foul you've called that game - no more and no less. This is not preventative officiating - it's poor officiating.

Don't mean to sound vindictive, but we've gone over having this attitude numerous times here.

That is your opinion sir. You know what I was talking about. I was just stating how to use good game management skills. There is nothing poor about it. If you have a girls middle school game and their only dribbler is fouled out for some nit picking calls, your game will go to hell. '
You can say what you want, but a game is not much a game without some kind of rhythm or flow. So if you can use some preventive officiating by talking to players, the game flows smoother.
The same principle goes for the game "knucklehead." Every game has one and as soon as you can get rid of him/her, the game cleans up.

I am so sorry that your having to explain yourself again on this opinion, but I just have recently joined. I am enjoying the good conversations.

Merry Christmas

[Yakivegas]

So just to clarify:

You will cut a player some slack if they have talent just so "your" game doesn't get messed up?

And conversely, your post suggests that getting rid of the "knucklehead" makes the game better. Do you go out of your way to "see" fouls committed by the alleged "knucklehead"?

[Coltdoggs]

Originally Posted by summdawg76

That is your opinion sir. You know what I was talking about. I was just stating how to use good game management skills. There is nothing poor about it. If you have a girls middle school game and their only dribbler is fouled out for some nit picking calls, your game will go to hell. ' You can say what you want, but a game is not much a game without some kind of rhythm or flow. So if you can use some preventive officiating by talking to players, the game flows smoother.
The same principle goes for the game "knucklehead." Every game has one a

nd as soon as you can get rid of him/her, the game cleans up.

I am so sorry that your having to explain yourself again on this opinion, but I just have recently joined. I am enjoying the good conversations.

Merry Christmas

Your reply was not directed at me but I will follow up my first response with this. The bolded part is of no concern to me...if it goes to hell, it goes to hell....I have my own team that I coach when not officiating and my job as official is not to adjust calls for the better players so the game doesn't go to hell.

We seem to have two discussions going. One is nit picky fouls and the other is who you are calling them on.

There is no provision in the rulebook that protects the best dribbler (or any other best skill set player you want to put out here) on a team. Why would that even come into consideration by an official to call or not to call a violation is simply silly and shows you have a biasedness toward one team or player. Cardinal sin as an official.

If you foul the player out it more than likely has something to do with contact that He or She is creating, causing you to blow the whistle.

Weather or not it's nit picky is soley up to the officials on the court who are charged with putting air in the whistle.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by summdawg76

That is your opinion sir. You know what I was talking about. I was just stating how to use good game management skills. There is nothing poor about it. If you have a girls middle school game and their only dribbler is fouled out for some nit picking calls, your game will go to hell. '
You can say what you want, but a game is not much a game without some kind of rhythm or flow. So if you can use some preventive officiating by talking to players, the game flows smoother.
The same principle goes for the game "knucklehead." Every game has one and as soon as you can get rid of him/her, the game cleans up.

I am so sorry that your having to explain yourself again on this opinion, but I just have recently joined. I am enjoying the good conversations.

Merry Christmas

I find this post more disturbing than the first one. Depending on your definition of the term, I think most of us try to avoid this. But when an official uses this phrase, in any context, I see it as a problem.