You're dodging the point. A bad call in the first quarter puts a team at a disadvantage which they have time to overcome. The same bad call inside 2 minutes to play might not allow them time to overcome it.

In that respect, the late bad call is distinct from the early one, and in a close game might be sufficient to decide, determine, or otherwise affect the outcome.

What's emotional about that? The point concerns how much time a team has to overcome a disadvantage inflicted by an official's bad call.

Yep, and it's true at all points of the game, not just the final moments.

INC vs. IC

They both have the exact same thing in common... "incorrect."

I agree that you shouldn't call a foul unless you're 100% sure it's a foul, but that doesn't mean that it's better to miss a foul than call a phantom foul. Both are equally bad, we just choose to err on the side of not calling fouls (as we should due to the other effects of a foul - disqualification, bonus, etc).

Actually, it does mean that.

Not in the closing moments of the game, it doesn't.

When you say it's better to err on the side of missing something rather than calling something that isn't there, it absolutely does mean that.

You want to make 100% sure there's a foul before you call it.

You do not have to be 100% sure there isn't a foul before letting it go.

The concept applies all game long.

You obviously don't want to make either mistake, but you've already admitted we choose to err on one side vs the other.

The only reason it's ever better to err on the side of not calling a foul is the fact that fouls accumulate. At the end of the game, where foul accumulation no longer matters, you do just as much harm by not calling a foul that is as you do by calling a foul that isn't. It's a complete change in the equation.

You've got two incorrect premises.

1. It's not the only reason. We apply the same philosophy to travel calls, and they don't "accumulate."
2. "foul accumulation" never ceases to matter.

Your other reasons then? And also please explain why the number of fouls called matters after the game ends.

To many officials swallow their whistles in the final seconds of the game and let players get creamed because they don't want to "affect" the outcome of the game. Are you really suggesting it's better for the game to do that than to kick it the other way?

Actually, it's very relevant to my initial point. People who say "that play decided the game" often do so out of emotion, when they're not looking at the totality.

First of all, I'll grant you the backtracking. That statement in red you have isn't correct, and I thank you for calling me on that. Perhaps I meant to say "CAN affect," but I didn't. If that's your main dispute, I concede that point.

That said, I don't believe it's a blanket statement where the significance of the impact is always inversely proportional to the time remaining. It may be a generality, but it isn't always the case. Again, I point to the block/charge kick example I made. There's no way to make up for that.

And again, as tref pointed out with his post, people often remember the last four minutes of a game, due to its magnification. To paraphrase my point, often that magnification is so great, that people easily lose sight on the rest of the events that caused the game's outcome.

For the same reason we don't call a travel unless we're absolutely sure it was a travel. Or do you call a travel when you're not quite sure and it looks funny and/or ugly? For the same reason you don't guess on a call. If I'm forced to guess, I'm guessing it was nothing.

The number of fouls don't matter after the game ends, but they certainly can matter with 20 seconds left. Besides, this is a pointless argument, you don't call any fouls after the game ends.

Where in the hell did I say that? We're not even talking about the official who swallows his whistle on a foul he sees. That's a whole different discussion that's not even relevant here. :rolleyes:

Some people may, but without evidence, you don't get to toss that at other officials in a hypothetical discussion. It's a canard in that sitation.


It was.
Sure there is. You make a PC call, in error, that takes away tying points with 60 seconds left in the game; that team still has 60 seconds to try to tie or win.

Can they get "those" two points? Obviously not, but they can sure try to get two "different" points. Strategies change now, they'll likely take a shot, or a defensive risk, that they wouldn't have otherwise.

You do the same thing as time expires, they're screwed out of a chance to win the game.

I note that you didn't actual give any other reason. You just listed the other situations where we err on the side of not blowing the whistle.

This whole argument does indeed boil down to seeing the foul but bottling it because it's better to not call a foul than to call a foul. The same injury is done to the game either way but the ref consoles himself that he wasn't really sure when he was/should have been.

Are you suggesting that it's only appropriate to be 100% sure on fouls, and not violations? I'm not sure I can articulate the "whys" here sufficiently for you if that's the case. If you agree that violations should have just as much certainty behind them as fouls, then you can use your own reasons.

Whether he was out of position is a completely different argument as well. We're only talking about a case where the official thinks there may have been a foul; not where he saw a foul but simply didn't have the stones to call it; or worse yet decided he didn't want to "take the game away from the kids."