End of game

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.