End of game

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

All true, but the key verb here is decide.

What decides the outcome of the game? The score. How long do we keep score? For the entire game, not just the final seconds.

It's very easy to get caught up in the emotions and drama of the final seconds. I get caught up in them, too. Naturally, it's what people remember.

But, let's put our heads above the emotions (as we officials are expected to do). In the grand scheme of things, the final seconds of a close game don't mean jack squat without everything else that happened during the game's entirety.

"THAT PLAY decided the game" is an emotional statement. When you look at the game objectively, the game is always decided via totality.

Good grief, don't throw the emotion canard at me, it's not going to get you anywhere but ignored due to lack of relevance. Here's the statement you made with which I initially disagreed:

Originally Posted by bainsey

In a close game, something you may or may not have called in the first quarter affects the game's outcome every bit as something you may or may not have called in the last minute.

That's simply not true, but I think you've sufficiently backtracked from it and fallen back to the word "decide." While a single play may not have "decided" the game, it can certainly affect the game. And the significance of that impact is inversely proportional to the time remaining in the game at the time of the event. That's what I've been arguing.

[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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by cmhjordan23

I know the philosophy is that a foul in the 1st QT is a foul in the 4th QT. 8th grade boys, 3rd place game tied with 5 sec left. Team A drives the endline (not very hard) and team B was in legal guarding position until he gave one of those hip checks. In the bonus, hits 1 and team goes on to win by 1. Coach didn't say much about it, but the fans were definitely on us. Saying that was weak. You hate to call a foul like that to decide the game but it is still a foul. I know the proper thing is to call it (my partners call), but would anybody let that go.

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.

Any foul call in the dying seconds is going to elicit fan response and bench response in a close game. I know it is HTBT, but the description in the OP matches up to: blowing the whistle = good call, right call; and, not blowing the whistle = choking or swallowing the whistle.

[Eastshire]

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.

A bad no-call is just as bad as a bad call. Either way you've kicked it.

Your standard for fouls needs to be the same from tip to final horn. The idea that a correctly called foul takes the game away from the players needs to be rejected for the mistaken belief that it is.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

A bad no-call is just as bad as a bad call. Either way you've kicked it.

Absolutely!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

A bad no-call is just as bad as a bad call. Either way you've kicked it.

Disagree.

It's better to miss something that happened than to "see" something that didn't.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree.

It's better to miss something that happened than to "see" something that didn't.

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

[tref]

INC vs. IC

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Disagree.

It's better to miss something that happened than to "see" something that didn't.

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, it does mean that.

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

[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.

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Good grief, don't throw the emotion canard at me, it's not going to get you anywhere but ignored due to lack of relevance.

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.

That's simply not true, but I think you've sufficiently backtracked from it and fallen back to the word "decide." While a single play may not have "decided" the game, it can certainly affect the game. And the significance of that impact is inversely proportional to the time remaining in the game at the time of the event. That's what I've been arguing.

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.