End of game

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You've got two incorrect premises.

1. It's not the only reason.
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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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

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.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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?

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.