Interesting End of Game Sequence

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Fixed it for ya.

Mbyron, first of all, never touch someone else's quote (except to put "[sic]" within it). That's bad form, and it can easily lead to misrepresentation. If you disagree with a quote, simply state how.

That said, I believe you missed my point.

In a close game, the calls we make in the first three quarters can affect the game's outcome every bit as the last one. If we do our jobs correctly, then people have less to complain about legitimately, but whether we're right or wrong, our actions and reactions affect a game's outcome. To say that we have no effect -- or suggest that we should have no effect -- is very myopic.

In the OP, Bison's partner did the right thing. The AD's attitude that one call affected the outcome of a game is very myopic. Had he not called the technical, he would have affected the outcome just as much, along with all the other activity of the game -- including the calls.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Mbyron, first of all, never touch someone else's quote (except to put "[sic]" within it). That's bad form, and it can easily lead to misrepresentation. If you disagree with a quote, simply state how.

You're really going to have to get over this. It's done all the time in here, sometimes to make a point, and others to be funny. Deal with it, or walk away; but stop whining about it. We were doing it long before you came along.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're really going to have to get over this. It's done all the time in here, sometimes to make a point, and others to be funny. Deal with it, or walk away; but stop whining about it. We were doing it long before you came along.

Well, if what they say about eating carrots is true, then it isn't only ears.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're really going to have to get over this. It's done all the time in here, sometimes to make a point, and others to be funny. Deal with it, or walk away; but stop whining about it. We were doing it long before you came along with your idiotic notions about altering others' posts.

Fixed it for ya.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're really going to have to get over this. It's done all the time in here, sometimes to make a point, and others to be funny. Deal with it, or walk away; but stop whining about it. We were doing it long before you came along. And if you ever need someone to be the rear end of a horse costume, please ask me, because I'm a real ...

Like this ???

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Like this ???

Ahhhhh The good old days. When sarcasm and humor could be quantified!

Of the 10's of 1,000's of games I have seen or been a part of I can honestly say that the outcome of only 3 were the direct result of the officials. (And since 2 were overseas, I'm not sure they count) Everything else came down to the actions of the players. To revisit an earlier 9+ page post, had that game been lost it would have not been b/c of the officials. It would have been due to an extremely slow start, missed defensive assignments and player attitude. Certainly the officials were lacking but they did not determine the outcome of the game..

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

In a close game, the calls we make in the first three quarters can affect the game's outcome every bit as the last one. If we do our jobs correctly, then people have less to complain about legitimately, but whether we're right or wrong, our actions and reactions affect a game's outcome. To say that we have no effect -- or suggest that we should have no effect -- is very myopic.

And you're missing mbyron's point. It's the players' actions that determine the game. Making the calls that need to be made does not affect the game.

If B1 fouls A1 on a last second shot from half court, I don't affect the game by making the call. B1 affected the game by committing a stupid foul. The difference is important, more than semantic.

The only way we affect games is by injecting our personal philosophies that run counter to the rules. One example would be the "let the players decide the game" canard that people throw out at the end of the game. In my example, the official would be affecting the game by not making that call.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're really going to have to get over this.

Really? I don't believe I have to do anything but stay white and die.

Since when does "everyone does it" make something right? I stand firm by my belief that you don't change someone's quote. If you don't understand that, you're easily missing how someone can be easily misrepresented by doing so.

The next time you say something, and someone else completely changes it, you'll get it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And you're missing mbyron's point. It's the players' actions that determine the game. Making the calls that need to be made does not affect the game.

Don't you believe it.

Our actions affect the game, period, which is why our jobs are so important, and why accuracy and proper rules application are vital. To simply say that what we do doesn't matter, as long as we do it right, is a load. We need to do it right BECAUSE our actions affect the outcome.

We can affect a game correctly or negatively. Your example of personal philsophies is certainly an example of negatively affecting a game, but there are more ways to affect an outcome than negatively. That's certainly not to say that we need to look to affect a game's outcome -- such actions would be represensible -- we just need to do our jobs.

Everything we do is cause and effect. Generally speaking, the cause is a rules infraction, and the effect is a penalty. When someone says "the ref had an effect on the outcome," what they're really saying is, "the ref had a NEGATIVE effect on the outcome." Causes and effects are ever-present, despite some perceptions.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Really? I don't believe I have to do anything but stay white and die.

Since when does "everyone does it" make something right? I stand firm by my belief that you don't change someone's quote. If you don't understand that, you're easily missing how someone can be easily misrepresented by doing so.

You're right, you don't have to. But it'll help keep you blood pressure down. What I meant was (because apparently it wasn't as obvious to you as it was to the rest of us), it's going to keep happening regardless of how twisted your panties get. You can let it go, or you can start looking for blood pressure medication. Your choice.

As for your insistence that "officials decide the game," I think mbyron stated my position better than I could.

I'll just add that continuing to say it that way is similar to signaling traveling on a throwin violation or reporting "over the back" when calling a pushing foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As for your insistence that "officials decide the game,"....

I didn't say that, either.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As for your insistence that "officials decide the game,"

Originally Posted by bainsey

I didn't say that, either.

You're right, my bad. You wrote:

Originally Posted by bainsey

In a close game, the calls we make in the first three quarters can affect the game's outcome every bit as the last one. If we do our jobs correctly, then people have less to complain about legitimately, but whether we're right or wrong, our actions and reactions affect a game's outcome. To say that we have no effect -- or suggest that we should have no effect -- is very myopic.

Semantically different from what you actually wrote, but either way you're putting the emphasis on the officials where it doesn't belong.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And you're missing mbyron's point. It's the players' actions that determine the game. Making the calls that need to be made does not affect the game.

If B1 fouls A1 on a last second shot from half court, I don't affect the game by making the call. B1 affected the game by committing a stupid foul. The difference is important, more than semantic.

The only way we affect games is by injecting our personal philosophies that run counter to the rules. One example would be the "let the players decide the game" canard that people throw out at the end of the game. In my example, the official would be affecting the game by not making that call.

Thank you. Well said.

Of course it would be silly to deny that officials' actions affect the outcome. We stop the game for violations and fouls and enforce penalties accordingly. That's all part of the causal history of a game.

But good officiating is simply observing and reporting: the players' actions are the primary determinant of the outcome when officials enforce the rules and penalties properly.

When officials fail to make the right call due to some "personal philosophy" (good term) beyond the rules, mechanics, and traditions of interpretation, then they become the primary determinant of the outcome, and that's not a good thing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

But good officiating is simply observing and reporting:

+1

I've often used the phrase "Our role is not that much different from the play-by-play guy (insert name of local celebrity in yur hometown). We just watch the play and tell people what happened."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Mbyron, first of all, never touch someone else's quote (except to put "[sic]" within it). That's bad form, and it can easily lead to misrepresentation. If you disagree with a quote, simply state how.

He didn't just change your quote and then show it as if it was accurately quoted. He showed your original and his change. Acceptable.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

He didn't just change your quote and then show it as if it was accurately quoted. He showed your original and his change. Acceptable.

Your house, your rules, Bob. Where I come from, changing words in a quote is changing what someone said, and that's misrepresentation. I won't do it.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Of course it would be silly to deny that officials' actions affect the outcome. .... When officials fail to make the right call ...., then they become the primary determinant of the outcome, and that's not a good thing.

Much better, particularly "primary determinant." I think that's a philosophy we can all embrace.