Bad Sportsmanship Karma

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by RecRef

But if you're not looking for 3 seconds, you're ignoring part of the rules which you are supposed to enforce. I guess I don't see how you can officiate when you choose which rules to enforce and when - if so, it is the only sport, and I officiate 3, that the rules are applied differently depending on what part of the game you're in. That sounds the same as the guys who choose not to call handchecks the way the rule is written, but ignore them because they don't think they're a violation. How can you have a game without rules, and how can you run a game if you pick and choose which rules to enforce and when to enforce them entirely at a whim? (or because someone said "ignore this rule under these circumstances")... [/B]

Well, I'm going to take it that you are new to this game. Know the history of the 3 second rule? Know advatage/disadvatage as it applies to 3 seconds? Know what will happen if you call every violation and foul? Know about being blackballed by ADs and or coaches? [/B][/QUOTE]

Then why do they have the rules if you're not supposed to call them? Why have refs? I understand not calling everything, but to ignore rules because you feel like ignoring them, or because you don't agree with them, is completely wrong.

What exactly is the history of the three-second rule? Not to allow people to gain an unfair advantage?

Also, being a soccer ref - in soccer, advantage/disadvantage is a rule. In basketball, it is NOT a rule - it is a consideration. You can't say, in basketball, "play on!" when you see a foul and want to ignore it, like soccer.

[zebraman]

drinkeii,

Officiating requires good judgment, common sense, knowing the intent of the rules, and an understanding of adv/dis. IMHO, ignoring a 3-second call in the situation described in this original post satisfies all of the above.

Z

[AK ref SE]

My two cents-
Contact is a foul by rule, 3 sec is a rule, there are a lot of rules in ever sport. If we call ever rule to the letter of the rule in every sport......it would be very boring to watch and to play. The point I am trying to make is that I do not think I ignore rules, I apply them a little differently in a blow out. If I did not do that I probably would not move to a higher level, because assignors and evaluators are looking at you game management skills.

AK ref SE

[Andy]

Also, being a soccer ref - in soccer, advantage/disadvantage is a rule. In basketball, it is NOT a rule - it is a consideration. You can't say, in basketball, "play on!" when you see a foul and want to ignore it, like soccer.

Ahhhh...here is where the fault in your logic lies, grasshopper.

Advantage/disadvantage is specifically mentioned in the basketball rulebook in the definition of a foul.

You are right about one thing...I don't say "PLAY ON", I just choose not to blow my whistle!! (In a 30 point game with 15 seconds left, I would often choose not to blow my whistle)

[Richard Ogg]

This is not an easy concept to understand. I'd ask you younger ref's who have been doing this for awhile to try to remember back when you were grappling with this, and have some compassion. For us older ref's, we can't remember back that far, regardless of how long ago or how recently we started this vocation. Now....

Someone once stated that a responsiblilty of the officials is to ensure that the best team wins (or has the opportunity to). Sounds like with a 30 point spread that this was accomplished, regardless of the 3-second call.

Game management is not easy to deal with. One way to look at it is to ask yourself which scenario is best:

1. team manages to lose by only 28 points instead of 30 because the offical failed to call a violation, or
   
2. player is called for 3-seconds, loses cool and expresses his (her) frustration, opponent is amused by the situation and laughs or comments, frustrated player places fist in opponent's face, bench clears and 4 players taken to hospital, ref sued for not controlling game, tesitmony shows that "harmless" violation led to frustration and therefore ref is partially to blame, ref's family spends rest of life living under bridge because home was sold to pay damages....

Blow-out games are tough to call. I do not compromise on my foul calls except for potentially that leaning screen that causes no one frustration. Violations, on the other hand, may get redefined.... Like the losing team steping 2" over the line on a throw-in..... I'll never see it because I will not be looking that direction - guaranteed!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Richard Ogg
Like the losing team steping 2" over the line on a throw-in..... I'll never see it because I will not be looking that direction - guaranteed!

Interestingly, this specific example is one that NCAA officials have been told may NOT be overlooked, even if there is no pressure in the backcourt during a 30 point blowout.

The directive was a result of a blatant violation which was seen by all but went uncalled by the official due to the lopsided score. I don't remember the specifics, but maybe Bob J or MTD will know.

Chuck

[rockyroad]

Mr. Rinke, here is the reason I would not call that violation...last year, Div II women's game, visitors up by 33, home team has ball, supervisor in stands, partner calls carrying on home guard in backcourt with no defensive player within 10 feet...after game, supervisors comment : "nice call, pal"(heavy sarcasm) ...this fall, rosters come out...partner no longer on roster..

Any more questions?

[Jay R]

Obviously there are many good points as to why you should not call that violation.

Mr. Rinke, you have stated that there is nothing in the rulebook to support such a decision. Let me quote from the FIBA rulebook:

Article 32.2

When deciding on a violation, the officials shall in each instance regard and weigh up the following fundamental principle:
- The spirit and intent of the rules and the need to
uphold the integrity of the game
- Consistency in applying common sense to each game,
bearing in mind the abilities of the players concerned
and their attitude and conduct during the game
- Consistency in maintaining a balance between game
control and game flow, having a "feel" for what the
participants are trying to do and calling what is right
for the game

[Brian Watson]

[QUOTE

(My post starts here - I can't get the indent to clear for some reason - drinkeii)

But it isn't written in any rule book - and if an assignor is basing their decisions on rules that don't exist, it is no different from officials calling the game based on their own rules, rather than the rules that exist for the game. How can you have a game when people make their own rules?

[Edited by drinkeii on Nov 26th, 2002 at 01:24 PM] [/i][/QUOTE]

You must have missed rules 1 and 2:

Rule 1: Your Assignor is always right

Rule 2: See Rule 1.

If you want to have a salmon day, then call the game by the book, including 3 seconds in this sitch. And, when you cannot move up, don't cry to us. If your assignor wants this called, then god bless, he/she must be the only one in the country that does.

Basically some very wise, experienced officials on this board are trying to help you be a better official. If you choose to not take that advice fine, but don't discount it. Quite frankly, if you were my partner and you called this, I would find a new partner.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by drinkeii

I'm curious as to what you mean by "like I was going to call that"... if you saw the violation, why would you not either:

1) Call it, or
2) Verbally indicate that the player should get out of the lane?

This is assuming you saw it. If you didn't see it, you coulnd't call it anyway. My understanding is that you are supposed to call the game the same from the beginning to the end, and the fact that one team is up by 30, and there are only 15 seconds left should have no impact on your choice to call a violation or a foul.

I agree that you might want to say something to move someone out after they camped in there. But call it in this situation - no thank you. Lets just go home. As a coach on either side, I just want the game over now.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebraman
IMHO, ignoring a 3-second call in the situation described in this original post satisfies all of the above.
Z

Actually, it wasn't described in the original post, but down the board a ways.

David -- In theory, I agree with you. I'm a legalist, and I don't see that playing fast and loose with the rules is within the spirit and intent. But in practice, there are all these situations where "judgement" and Ad/Disad come into play. I mean, what is gained or lost by calling or not calling 3-seconds against a team that is down by 30 with 15 seconds left? They are NOT getting away with anything. They also aren't learning their lessons. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. Don't bother. It doesn't work and it annoys the pig. If you must call it, at least wait until the ball drops down to the "camper". That seems like judgement to me.

[RecRef]

Originally posted by Jay R

- The spirit and intent of the rules and the need to
uphold the integrity of the game
- Consistency in applying common sense to each game,
bearing in mind the abilities of the players concerned
and their attitude and conduct during the game
- Consistency in maintaining a balance between game
control and game flow, having a "feel" for what the
participants are trying to do and calling what is right
for the game

We sometimes make fun of FIBA as a joke around here. The above is very very good. Hats of to FIBA!

[Edited by RecRef on Nov 27th, 2002 at 07:40 AM]

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by Andy

Ahhhh...here is where the fault in your logic lies, grasshopper.

Advantage/disadvantage is specifically mentioned in the basketball rulebook in the definition of a foul.

You are right about one thing...I don't say "PLAY ON", I just choose not to blow my whistle!! (In a 30 point game with 15 seconds left, I would often choose not to blow my whistle)

So it is mentioned... as I stated before. It is not a "rule", it is a consideration. How about this (devil's advocate) - It is always an advantage to the fouled team to call the foul, because it gets them closer to the bonus, gets the player that fouled closer to being out of the game. There is never a disadvantage to calling a foul, except maybe on a drive where you call a foul on the floor before what would be an easy basket.

So how does advantage/disadvantage apply to a blowout then? It is not to either team's advantage to call fouls on the lagging team, but then again, the game would get out of control if you just let them foul because they were so far behind it woulnd't make a difference. These are difficult games to officiate. But the rules make no difference for a blowout vs. a close game - they are the same. Choosing to ignore certain rules because of the time of the game or the location, etc... seems to fly in the face of the people who wrote and approved the rules. If they were supposed to be applied differently under different circumstances, that would be in the rules... and it's not! Common sense is nice, but the game isn't played on "common-sense book" - it's played on a "rule book". No rules, no game. And the refs SHOULDN'T be influencing the game - you should (theoretically) get the same game with the same rules, officiated in pretty much the same way, wherever and whenever you play. Otherwise, why even have rules?

[BOBBYMO]

Very good point. The rules are not different at one time from some other time. So remember the rule: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever call 3-seconds on the team that's down by 30. Ever. Doesn't matter if there's 15 seconds left in the game or if there's 10 minutes left in the first half (Heaven help you in that case!!!).

My first juco game was last Friday and it was not as competitive as I'd hoped. The home team had pulled out to a 25 point lead or so. I could've called about 5 illegal screens on the visitors in the last 3 minutes and I called exactly. . . zero.

Remember the rule.

Just my 2 cents.

Chuck

P.S. -- if you are tempted to ask "Well, where is that rule written down?", I'll tell you where it's written: In your assignor's and your observer's notebooks. So ignore it at your own peril. ("Let me face the peril!" "No, no. It's too perilous.")



Chuck... Illegal screens are called illegal for a reason and they must be called no matter the score or the time remaining on the clock.

Just common sence and my 2 cents.
Bob

[ChuckElias]

Hey everybody. Just got back from my Thanksgiving in Florida and I'm catching up on the conversations of the last few days. I know you missed me, and I'm sure. . . Beg your pardon? Yes, I was gone for 5 whole days. Seriously, I was gone. Not a post. You didn't notice? Sigh. I hate you guys. I hate you guys so much.

Originally posted by BOBBYMO
Chuck... Illegal screens are called illegal for a reason and they must be called no matter the score or the time remaining on the clock.

Just common sence and my 2 cents.
Bob

Just my opinion, Bob, but I disagree. In a lopsided game with time winding down, if the screen is illegal, but not blatent, I'm going to let it slide. Yes, it was not set properly and yes, it probably gave the offensive player an advantage. But making the call results only in a turnover (at the NCAA level) or extra FTs for the winning team (at the HS level) and frustration for the team that's getting crushed.

Notice the result at the college level is exactly the same as the result for the 3-second violation. And the game I was talking about was a (junior) college game. Hmmmmmm. So -- at the college level, at least -- if you're not going to call the 3-seconds, then you probably shouldn't call the illegal screen. Just one more indication that you should let it go.

Chuck