4th foul

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is the main part of my disagreement. So, what criteria do you use if this situation happens in the first 2 minutes of the game? You don't have any extra information to deal with, such as which player is a jerk, which one has 4 fouls, which team is way ahead, which fans would give you a hard time, etc., etc., etc. So, let's see...maybe you would use the criteria of "Which player fouled first"? Hmm...there's an idea.

Now, what rule, case, interp, memo, etc. do you reference that says you can then change the way you make that call late in the game? So, instead of simply making the decision of "Which player fouled first?", you can now bring other factors into the decision-making process?

If I'm not certain which foul was first, I'm going to use every piece of information at my disposal to make the decision. Early in the game I'll have a different amount of information than later in the game.

If there's a kid who's been a critical piece in keeping the game in control - a guy who seems to keep hot-heads under control and contributes to the game flow who is involved in a foul along with a guy who doesn't contribute those things, and I can't tell which of them fouled first, I'm probably giving it to the second guy.

Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the information I use to make the call.

Nothing said in this thread is any different than that.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

If I'm not certain which foul was first, I'm going to use every piece of information at my disposal to make the decision. Early in the game I'll have a different amount of information than later in the game.

If there's a kid who's been a critical piece in keeping the game in control - a guy who seems to keep hot-heads under control and contributes to the game flow who is involved in a foul along with a guy who doesn't contribute those things, and I can't tell which of them fouled first, I'm probably giving it to the second guy.

Doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the information I use to make the call.

Nothing said in this thread is any different than that.

Actually, I'm trying to say it's different.

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but Mary Struckhoff came out with a memo on the NCAA-W site that addresses this specific topic of game management and preventative officiating. As officials, we are to call plays, and manage situations. The difference being "situations" usually happen during dead balls. An example would be a sub running out on the floor without reporting to the table first. By strict reading of the rule, it's an automatic T. But in the practical sense, we usually stop them and send them back to the table to report. Or, if there's a sub waiting at the table, and they run out as soon as the ball is dead before they are beckoned on, we usually beckon them on "after the fact". In both cases, what the player did was worthy of a penalty by strict reading of the rules, but it has become expected of us, as officials, to manage the situation and still adhere to the "spirit of the rule" vs. the "letter of the rule". The difference though, is we are still to call live ball plays by the rules. A foul is a foul. A violation is a violation. At any time during the game. "An official must not succumb to managing call selection — that’s when managing turns into manipulation.” And, even though I'd like to take credit for that phrase, it comes right out of the CCA Manual.

Now, I understand there are differences between NFHS, NCAA-W, and NCAA-M. But this is the first time I've seen anything like this put in writing, at any of the levels. I happen to agree with the philosophy. I would like to see if there is a different philosophy in writing someplace at any of the other levels. If not, then, "The big dogs in my area do it this way" isn't good enough for me. Then again, if your assignor wants it done that way, then by all means, do it according to the boss's wishes.