players with 4 fouls

[Adam]

The only time I tell a player to be smart is when he looks like he's getting frustrated and might get a T.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The only time I tell a player to be smart is when he looks like he's getting frustrated and might get a T.

being aware that a player has four fouls and telling everyone in the building you are aware that that player has four fouls are two different things.

I would never tell a player to watch it you have four fouls, I would tell a player to be smart, or take a deep breath, or watch it - now is not the time to be get a case of the stupids, to avoid the player doing something that has consequences.

But the discussion of how many fouls a player has is just asking for trouble - especially when s/he turns and say's "Go ahead a## @*$% give me my fifth!"

[Back In The Saddle]

What can I say? You can't fix stupid.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Like I said, we've had this discussion on here before. Some people want to know as much info as possible - NOT to change the way they are calling the game, but to be aware of what is going on. I will never ask the scorekeeper who has 4 fouls or who is in foul trouble, but if they are putting the fouls on the board or have a PA person announcing the fouls - I WILL know when a player commits their 4th. Others seem to have some misguided notion that this desire for information means I am somehow cheating or trying to manipulate the game. My response to those people - whatever. They don't get it. I don't care that they don't get it. C'est la vie.

I'll go along with you on this. If the information is readily available, I don't advocate making a point NOT to know. I simply say that being conspicuous about gathering this information can be easily misconstrued by others. When the phrases "make sure the 5th is not a cheap one" and "involving the star player" are included in the discussion, I feel we have crossed the line.

[beachbum]

I would bet that most officials can reflect back at calls made in their games and think that there were some that, if the given the chance to go back, would not make that same call.

that is what I would call a cheep or questionable call.

So, when talking about a players 5th foul, If in reflecting back you think,"gosh i wish I would have held my whistle on that one", that is what this discussion is about.

If the guy hammers someone going up for a basket, it's a no brainer, give him his 5th. But in knowing a player has 4 and see him do something questionable, and then giving the 5th!!!

If the same ref gave all of the fouls in a game, then you would have consistency, but since we rotate, each official is going to view a play differently. If you think that statement is not true, think about the times your partner has called a foul and you wondered what he saw that you didn't.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by beachbum

I would bet that most officials can reflect back at calls made in their games and think that there were some that, if the given the chance to go back, would not make that same call.

that is what I would call a cheep or questionable call.

So, when talking about a players 5th foul, If in reflecting back you think,"gosh i wish I would have held my whistle on that one", that is what this discussion is about.

If the guy hammers someone going up for a basket, it's a no brainer, give him his 5th. But in knowing a player has 4 and see him do something questionable, and then giving the 5th!!!

You shouldn't even give the player his first on this. If it's just questionable, it's legal.

Originally Posted by beachbum

If the same ref gave all of the fouls in a game, then you would have consistency, but since we rotate, each official is going to view a play differently. If you think that statement is not true, think about the times your partner has called a foul and you wondered what he saw that you didn't.

You really should make it a point not to make foul calls unless you see what happened. If you don't see it, don't call it.

That said, everyone makes that call now and then; but I would hope you don't make them every game. I'd much rather look back and think, "I should have had a whistle there."

Personally, I think everyone should make every foul call as if it might be the player's fifth. Those that think the fifth should be an extra careful call will learn to call every foul like that, and those that make every call carefully won't have to change a thing.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Since when is it your job to coach the players? If I'm the opposing coach, it would sure sound like favoritism to me.

That's coaching a player? Besides, how would you even know what I said to a player? You wouldn't. Too funny. Good thing my people skills defuse paranoia.

[deecee]

Any type of "whatever management" that is not explicity covered in the rule books just falls under officials preferences. Each method has its followers and each side swears their way is better and the other way is not as optimal. Then we argue over how each person wants to run a game as if its our place to say.

The rule book allows for anything not covered in the rule book to be at our discretion. People feel comfortable doing it one way over another fine. Until someone who has authority over them (their association) tells them to do otherwise its just opinion. If some guys want to coach, let them, its their choice and their responsibility. Who are any of you to tell them what to do and then get so worked up when they reject your opinion.

As officials sometimes we think to much about the game an not about the job. Get on the floor make your calls, and when you are done leave. No one outside of our circle really gives a damn that we are there, and they are not there to watch us. If some guys feel comfortable officiating players rather than the game, then let them. Its their choice and their career. Its also their region and their territory.

I do think that there are differences between officials that are greater than just personal preference. I think region, and association play as a big a part in how we officiate from one area to another when it comes to certain items. But what I have learned from experience is what a lot of "experienced" officals say about reffing, that sounds so good its as if they are on a pulpit, and what they actually do when they are officiating a game is like night and day. Then again I had one such "experienced" official tell me that me and my partner looked sloppy because one of us had pleated pants and the other didnt (this was during my 6th year). When he started to give some more feedback I just got up and left. I appreciated any feedback and help that is useful and will make me a better official, but sometimes I do feel like the "experienced" officials just like to hear themselves talk.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

That's coaching a player? Besides, how would you even know what I said to a player? You wouldn't. Too funny. Good thing my people skills defuse paranoia.

Players talk.

Coach: "Hey, Bobby, what'd the ref say to you?"
Bobby: "He said I have four fouls and to play smart."

And that's just Bobby's coach that's going to be upset with you.

Yeah, that's coaching the kids. If that's okay where you ref, so be it; but it wouldn't be okay any place I've reffed.
Coach: "Hey, Billy, what'd the ref say to #24 red?"
Billy: "He said he had 4 fouls and to play smart."

Coach: "That's three seconds!"
Official: "Coach, I can't have you officiating from the bench like that."
Coach: "Why not, you've been coaching from the court."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When the phrases "make sure the 5th is not a cheap one" and "involving the star player" are included in the discussion, I feel we have crossed the line.

And I agree with that. Notice you haven't read those comments in any of my posts!!

[DonInKansas]

With ANYONE having 4 fouls, it's not the official's job to change the way he's officiating; it's the player's job to change the way he's playing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

You will see more often than not at the upper levels that when there are two players available to take the foul and the impact player is in foul trouble the non impact player comes away with the foul.

I've heard this from some very, highly regarded, and highly respected, officials on my local board. That's fine for them, but not for me. I never called a multiple foul, nor have I ever seen one called, or heard about one called, so the foul that puts the fouled player at the greatest disadvantage is the one that I'm calling, whether it's a star player's second foul, a star player's fifth foul, or a bench warmer's foul.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Players talk.

Coach: "Hey, Bobby, what'd the ref say to you?"
Bobby: "He said I have four fouls and to play smart."

And that's just Bobby's coach that's going to be upset with you.

Yeah, that's coaching the kids. If that's okay where you ref, so be it; but it wouldn't be okay any place I've reffed.
Coach: "Hey, Billy, what'd the ref say to #24 red?"
Billy: "He said he had 4 fouls and to play smart."

Coach: "That's three seconds!"
Official: "Coach, I can't have you officiating from the bench like that."
Coach: "Why not, you've been coaching from the court."

You can make that case. I've not had any problems with what I do. If anything, the coaches I deal with appreciate preventative officiating, and the players know I'm trying to help them. I guess it is all how you are perceived by the coaches and players. If your judgment or people skills are off, you are correct, you can get bit. I still think that this is the right approach. If you can learn to do it, game management and relationships with the players and coaches becomes very simple.

BTW, I'd never respond to a coach yelling 3 seconds.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

BTW, I'd never respond to a coach yelling 3 seconds.

Not the first time, anyway; but you just gonna ignore him if he's yelling it every time down the court?

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

so the foul that puts the player at the greatest disadvantage is the one that I'm calling, whether it's a star player's second foul, a star player's fifth foul, or a bench warmer's foul.

You did not just say that!

After all of the wrangling back and forth over whether it is right or wrong to know if a player has three or four fouls - and it influencing your calls you just said that you were going to call the foul that puts the player (thereby the team) at the greatest disadvantage.

You sure you do not want to rephrase that - becuase if you disagree with the original premise IMO what you just wrote is worse.