The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 01:40pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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."
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 01:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:07pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What happened to the T to start the game--NCAA Game thread? w_sohl Basketball 1 Tue Mar 10, 2009 01:32pm
Jordan's 63 pt game - Game 2 of 1st round 1986 Eastern Conference Playoffs Cajun Reff Basketball 15 Fri Mar 07, 2008 09:56am
Twenty technicals in one game - all for delay of game! Mark Padgett Basketball 14 Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:55pm
Next game teams warming up on field during game reccer Softball 6 Mon Jul 16, 2007 03:00pm
Cursed Game: 3 Injuries, 2 ambulance calls, 1 game wadeintothem Softball 3 Mon Oct 16, 2006 04:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1