End of game

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

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."

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This thread kinda warped over time, did it not? The OP, I think, recognized the relative importance of the final seconds in the scheme of things. He also feels, apparently, that a bad no-call is better than a bad call. I would agree. But what I get out of the OP is that he is asking if he should change his standard of making a call in the final seconds to help avoid making a bad call in this circumstance. I think most of us agree the answer to this is no.

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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'.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You're dodging the point. A bad call in the first quarter puts a team at a disadvantage which they have time to overcome.

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.

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

Can they get "those" two points? Obviously not, but they can sure try to get two "different" points.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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