Where in this thread did anyone say to not call a foul that should have been called?

If there's a foul, call it. If two players foul, determine which was first. At times, other factors may have to help you decide which was first.

Nowhere did anyone advocate not calling a 5th foul if one was warranted.

tadams,

When taken in context, without reading any sinister intent into them, the statements that have been made are true.

The fifth foul is the one people will remember, and the one people will assign the greatest importance to, which means it is the one that will be on the video your assigner gets. So absolutely, the fifth foul should be a "good one".

Nobody is suggesting that we call the fifth foul any differently than the first four. The first four fouls should be "good ones" too! But the fifth one is the biggie. And if you are the sort of official who tries to focus or bear down more when its really important, that's the moment.

Now the argument about giving the fifth foul to another player. If A1 gets fouled by multiple defenders, and its the sort of play where at any other point in the game you would simply pick one of the culprits and give him the foul...there is a school of thought that says you should consciously pick the kid who doesn't already have four fouls. How does that equate to having no balls? :confused:

Good is a relative term. The fifth foul should be good. Certainly. But good relative to what, if not the other four fouls? This implies that it is less important that the other fouls be good.

Okay, JAR, see if you can follow me here...

Exactly which words, which phrases in the statement "The fifth foul should be good" imply anything about the first four fouls? Yes, the word "good" is a relative term, it implies a comparison. But the implied comparison is only between a good or bad fifth foul.

The statement you are criticizing does not, in fact, imply anything at all about the first four fouls. What you have chosen to infer from that statement, well that's your doing.

Have you ever had a foul you've called been one you wish you could have back because in hindsight you maybe shouldn't have called it? You want to make sure the 5th foul on a player isn't one of those.

I never suggested otherwise. But then again I forgot where I am writing this response. :D

Peace

Actually this is what the OP said. He did not suggest anything about treating it differently. He said do you take notice when a player gets their 4th foul. Here are his comments below.


This is why people are saying you guys are "implying" what was said. I do not recall saying anything about not calling a foul or calling it on the wrong player. I will say that there are often fouls where we have to choose a player. That involves judgment and if there is a situation where you do not know for sure, you pick one. How people come to that conclusion is always going to be different from one person to another. Some will say pick the least of the two that will not cause the most trouble. Others say pick the problem child. But I will say I am not calling a multiple foul that is for sure. ;) And you and JAR have not shown any comment where someone said not to call a foul. Actually all they said was "make it be there." One thing I have figured out, what is considered a "good call" is based on a lot of judgment and personal feelings. What I may think is good, you may think is bad. There is never going to be a way to close the gap. Because I might think most of your fouls are terrible and even if you call the 5th foul to your liking, I may not like any of the other fouls, while you thought you were calling the right things. All of this is subjective and always will be on some level.

Peace

BITS, you're insisting on a purely logical sense of implication, when in fact most people rely on a looser notion known as "conversational implicature." The latter explains, for example, why your wife might be justifiably upset if you began introducing her as your "first wife" (assuming you've had just one!).

Nothing follows logically about second or third wives, but everyone would (reasonably) draw the inference.

At this point we agree. Unless I had had multiple wives, and I was with the first one at that moment, there is no reason to say it like that. And since I'm the sort of guy who likes to say stuff like that just to mess with people, I guarantee you I would be implying something. But whether or not you "get" what I'm implying depends on your ability to infer what I'm implying. It's a safe bet my wife would get the implication, however, and what I'd "get" after that would be pain. Lots of pain. ;)

Are you guys being pedantic? :cool:

The promotion of fairness and treating the rules with respect means to be consistant. If a foul is committed then a foul needs to be called... dont be afraid if it is the fifth. Do what is right, not what is easy. In respect to not having any balls, just dont be timid into making the call. You will be much more apt to get yourself on the highlight film with the respective governing body by favoring one team then by making a tough call.


Please no one take offense to my statements, I am not trying to call anyone out. I am just sharing my perspective of the posts I have read and my philosophy on game management. In practice, as you all know relate, that third strike is tough to call when it is curve ball glancing a corner and it is the 4th hitter. Now the nineth hitter, no problem... nobody expects him to get on anyway. ;)

It might be easier not to take offense if you didn't imply those you disagree with have no balls. And it's not about whether it's tough to call, it's about ensuring it's the right call.

The point is simple. The fifth foul is going to be more scrutinized, plain and simple, because it's the proverbial straw. While we always want to make sure we have the right call, and we never want to call a phantom foul; it's even more crucial on the final foul. Like it or not, it's how it is.

It's more like the difference between the first strike in the first inning on your proverbial cleanup hitter verses the third strike in the bottom of the 9th with two outs.

I am believing we are going to make the same call on the play at hand. Hopefully for me it is because I have been consistant in my application of the rules and for you that you feel ensured that it is the right call. :)

The fact that this thread repeatedly refers specifically to the fifth foul, as opposed to fouls in general, still indicates that the fifth may be considered to be worthy of different consideration from the first four.

Consider this. If a player picks up two quick fouls early in the game, the third foul now becomes the one that "better be a good one" if it happens soon afterward.

All this is further complicated when some fans/coaches/officials bring up the "star player" as part of the equation of what is or is not a "good foul."

Bottom line is that I see all this discussion as ripe to be misconstrued.

"Didja see on the officiating board? Those guys said they won't call the fifth foul on the star unless he draws blood! I knew something funny was going on."

Don't ask. Don't tell.

I've read your post three times now. I still have no clue what you're getting at. But I don't really care. I gave a kid his fifth foul tonight. It was a good one. So were the other four.