Interesting End of Game Sequence
 

7th Grade Boys Tournament game last week. Team A is down 53-50 with the ball, less than 15 seconds left. I am the L. As A brings ball down the floor, partner calls a block on B32 with 9 seconds left. Knowing it was his 5th foul, he heads to the bench and rips off his jersey in disgust on the floor while shaking his head (kid had attitude problems earlier and had already been warned). Partner T's up 32, I administer the 1-1 for the block, which he misses the front end. Same player shoots technical free throws. Makes both to pull within one. A ball sideline, A hits a 15 ft. turnaround at the horn to win 54-53. As we are leaving the court, the AD for the district tells my partner that he should have just warned the kid and he determined the outcome of the game.

Guess the AD wasn't paying attention.

Warning For A Strip Tease ??? You've Got To Be Kidding Me ...
 

How will a warning help here? Warn him, make him put his shirt back on, tuck it in, and if, and only if, he rips off his jersey in disgust a second time, as a disqualified player on the bench, in that game, then it's alright to charge him with a technical foul? Yeah, sure.

I guess the athletic director needs same help from the Mythbusters. Here is a rarely used section from the Mythbuster list:

Officials are on the court to be the only unbiased arbiters of the game. Officials are not concerned with who wins or loses, but only fairness and safety. Everyone else in that gym cares about winning, and therefore cannot look at the game objectively. Players commit fouls and violations; officials view those infractions, judge the action, and then apply the rules of the game to what they had viewed. The rules then determine the penalty.

Forget the Mythubusters and just use the rules. Case book play 10.4.1SitD is the exact same play. Immediate technical foul with no warning. Note that if the head coach had been notified of the disqualification before the kid pulled his crap, the head coach would have been charged with an indirect "T" also.

Just to clarify...

"strip-tease" gets T for behavior, and coach gets an indirect for failing to control player? 4 shots and ball at division line?

After coach is notified, disqualified player is now bench personnel. So the T on the player is charged as an indirect on the coach. No free throws for an indirect..........ever.

The AD's opinion means just as much as the guy's in the 12th row.

Interesting. Player is already DQ'd so you charge coach with indirect T and does this count towards team fouls?

Are you an official? And you are totally unfamiliar with an indirect technical?

I'll say it again. In a close game, nearly everything we do affects the outcome of a game.

The T on the player is the foul that is added to the team foul total. The indirect on the coach is not a separate foul. You just shoot two free throws.

There we go... thats what I was looking for. Still shooting 2 and the ball for the DQ'd player's T. I misread "not shooting.....ever" Not shooting on the indirect T for coach I get you now.

An indirect is one infraction recorded against the coach in addition to the culprit(s). Being only one infraction, there is only one pair of FTs awarded and only one team foul recorded.

Fixed it for ya.

We don't make shots, score goals, or foul opponents. Those are the actions that affect the outcome the game.

I would take a middle school AD's comments with a huge chunk of salt. I would hope my response to his inane comment would be professional; but I can't guarantee it.

Around here, everything is assigned by assigners, so I'd be on the phone before I left the parking lot.

Not to blunt any criticism of me, I couldn't care less. If the assigner doesn't want me making this call, I won't be working his ms games. I'd make the call to complain about the AD trying to inject himself into the officiating.

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.

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 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.

Let me clarify about the AD. He isn't the AD for the site, he is the AD at the district level for a very large district over 3 high schools and 5 middle schools(over 20,000 students). He also happens to be my boss (I coach at the HS level in the district). While I didn't agree with his comment, he was very polite about it and didn't go out of his way to say it or do it in front of others (he was watching the game from the hallway that the locker rooms were in). This was a young, first year official and I think he just thought he was trying to help the guy out. Again, I don't agree with his comment, but I also want to clarify the tone/context of the conversation. Also, both schools were MS from the district, so it wasn't like it benefitted a school outside the district at the expense of one of 'his' schools.

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

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.

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.

Fixed it for ya. ;)

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.

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.

+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."

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.

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

Just An Example ...
 

Like this ???

Most, if not all, of the quote 'changes' that I have observed here are in red. I have been here for several years. The original posts have not been altered. Had someone altered the original post, then hacking would have been the m.o. I have had mine get the red letter treatment on occasion. My advice is to simply "Lighten up, Francis".

The Infamous Officials Determine The Outcome Of A Game Myth ...
 

From the files of the Mythbusters.

Players commit fouls and violations; officials view those infractions, judge the action, and then apply the rules of the game to what they had viewed. The rules then determine the penalty.

Forget the Mythbusters.

From the NFHS rule book re: THE INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE RULES...

A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

+1

It's A Myth ...
 

So, you don't believe that it's a myth that officials can determine the outcome of a game? I think that mbyron, and Snaqwells (see above), think it's a myth.

It is my opinion that many fans, players, and coaches, believe that officials determine the outcome of a game. Officials know that it's only a myth. No different than fans yelling three seconds when the ball is still in the backcourt. This "outcome of the game" myth should not be ignored. It needs to be "busted".

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.

He's just saying the "myth busters" schtick is getting old from overuse. I'm not saying he's right, but I'm just sayin'...

I didn't say that, either.

Same Old, Same Old ...
 

The Forum keeps getting the same mythological questions from newbies, players, coaches, and fanboys, all the time. The list was a group effort. It's just a simple way to answer these type of questions. Just a simple copy and paste. Boring? Yes. But so are some of the mythological questions we get, on the Forum, and in real life. What's wrong with having a little fun with the same old, same old, questions by using the same old, same old, Mythbusters list?

Only if you're actually claiming they said it. The whole context with the "Fixed it for ya" tell you that they are not....that they're modifying it for humor or clarity.

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..

You're right, my bad. You wrote:

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

I come from just about where you come from, and I don't see the red letter treatment that way. JMO.

I wasn't really talking about locality, my fellow statesman. I was talking more about my education, and how you handle one's quotes. But, that's another story.

Not emphasizing anything, Snaq. I'm merely stating what is.

The myth is that officials should never be involved in determining the outcome of a game. The reality is, that's impossible, and that's all I'm saying. Mbyron pretty much spelled out the reasons.

Ibid ...
 

Footnote citations, or references? How about posting bibliographies?