Not at all. I agree completely on both fouls and violations that the only acceptable way to call the game is if you didn't see it, it didn't happen. I'm just saying you didn't give me a reason why this is so.

This is a disconnect, as I've not only been talking about an official who is unsure. I'm speaking to the game itself, not how we call it. The game is hurt when we make a bad (that is a factually incorrect) non-call just as much as it is hurt when we make a bad call in the closing of the seconds. Even if we were philosophically correct to make the non-call due to being screened or having bad positioning or needing a third official to get it but only having two, the damage to the game is the same.

It's just that we have to accept it.

Actually my concern with the OP is that he was doubting himself b/c of the fans. He seemed to have officiated the final plays properly but b/c the fans reacted a certain way he questioned what he did.

We might be parsing words here, but in the OP, it did not appear to be a 'bad call', but rather a reaction by the OP that was second guessing what appeared to be a 'correct call'.

Not dodging anything, mb. If anything, I'm disputing it. Just because something can be overcome does not change the fact that an early kick still can affect a game. That was my point.

Never on its own. There's too much going on in the course of 32 (40, 48, etc.) minutes for one play to decide anything.

I didn't think I had to, you're the one who stated the only reason for the philosophy is the accumulation of fouls; when you obviously don't agree or you'd disregard that philosophy for violations.

Either way, you must have some other reason for applying the philosophy to violations or you wouldn't do it. I'm just saying you can use your own reasons and apply those to fouls, also, unless there's some reason they don't apply.


The ref who is sure but holds his whistle anyway has different issues that aren't really at play here.

I agree that missed calls hurt the game, but I disagree that they hurt it just as much as phantom calls.

And I'm still not sure with whom you were arguing his point, because no one disputed it.

The dispute was with your "just as much" insinuation.

Indeed it is. The whole point of my initial post was for the OP not to buy into the canard.

That's small consolation, if they wind up losing by one or two.

And my only contention with your initial post was with the "just as much" fallacy.

I'm not saying the two points can't be costly. No one has. But the more time a team has to overcome the errors, the less I feel sorry for them.

So: tie game, last second shot, no contact, official mistakenly calls a shooting foul, shooter sinks the first FT to win the game.

That's not a bad call determining the outcome? Or you're going to tell me that the FT contributed. :rolleyes:

Well then how about this one: team down by 2, last second shot, clearly off in time, official mistakenly waves it off, shot goes in (if it's a 2 we should go to OT, if it's a 3 the game's over). That's not a bad call determining the outcome?

Again: it seems to me that you're not just wrong, you're obviously wrong. I can't imagine why you're disputing these points.

The score being tied and then within 2 points when the error occurred determined the outcome. If these mistakes happen in a 20 point game, they are barely noticed. They had a big effect for sure, but they cannot in and of themselves decide the game.

There it is.

Three pages in and I'm wondering the same thing. :confused: Seems pretty obvious to me.

Agreed. Doubting oneself in any tough decision is natural. But doubting yourself on a call because of the reaction of fans, is not something that should happen at all.

Good example of the false magnification of the importance of a call at the end:

Years ago, one of the first varsity games I ever called. Visitors trailed the entire game, the outcome was apparently decided. Mostly subs were in the game. Visitors threw in some 3's, got a couple of turnovers, and all of a sudden it's a one point game in the last few seconds. Pressure in the backcourt and the ball is knocked out, home to inbound right in front of visitors bench with 1 second on the clock. V1, 6'5" center, pressures the throw-in, extending over the line up to his armpits. I give the warning. He backs up, then, on the count of 3, steps up and does the same thing again. T Visitors bench threw a fit. Home missed both free throws, threw it in, and the game was over. V principal called my assignor to complain about the call, saying, among other things, that it had cost them a chance to win the game. On the contrary, had I not made this (proper) call, and the pressure resulted in a turnover, it would have given them a chance to win which they should not have had.

Because he's hung up on the term "decide."