End of game

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.



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.

I note that you didn't actual give any other reason. You just listed the other situations where we err on the side of not blowing the whistle.

This whole argument does indeed boil down to seeing the foul but bottling it because it's better to not call a foul than to call a foul. The same injury is done to the game either way but the ref consoles himself that he wasn't really sure when he was/should have been.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I note that you didn't actual give any other reason. You just listed the other situations where we err on the side of not blowing the whistle.

This whole argument does indeed boil down to seeing the foul but bottling it because it's better to not call a foul than to call a foul. The same injury is done to the game either way but the ref consoles himself that he wasn't really sure when he was/should have been.

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.

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."

[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.