Bad Sportsmanship Karma

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by 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?

Yes - when did the question of assigning games have ANYTHING to do with decisions based on the rules? Sounds like you're more concerned with pleasing an assignor or observer than staying true to the rules of the game.

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by 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]

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. [/QUOTE]

Last I checked, there are no rules 1 and 2 in the book - actually, there are - they have to do with court dimentions and the such.

As for not wanting me as a partner because I call the game according to the rules, I would prefer not to have a partner who just makes things up as they go along... I find it very hard to explain to people when they ask about why things were and were not called to say "Well, I guess it's just because he decided he wanted to ignore this rule" or "...decided he wanted to call it even though it isn't a rule."

Also, in response to the FIBA thing, we do not operate under FIBA rules. And it certainly doesn't seem to make sense to make a set of rules, and then say "Well, but if you feel you want to ignore some or all of them under your own discretion to make it a better game, go right ahead" - so much for having any rules at all!

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by 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!

Then why are you officiating, if you're not watching for what you're supposed to be?

I don't see this loss of house thing happening. A court saying "Ignore the rules of the game whenever you feel like it" dosn't seem like a very likely scenario either.

[rockyroad]

Oh for God's sake...Mr. Rinke, how many multiple fouls have you called? It's a rule, and if the shooter is hit on the arm by one player, and bumped into by a second player, then by golly you'd better call that multiple foul and report them both and administer the free throws correctly...or do you just report the first foul?

[Jurassic Referee]

Ooooh,now Rocky needs a brownpop!

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by rockyroad
Oh for God's sake...Mr. Rinke, how many multiple fouls have you called? It's a rule, and if the shooter is hit on the arm by one player, and bumped into by a second player, then by golly you'd better call that multiple foul and report them both and administer the free throws correctly...or do you just report the first foul?

That depends on if I can see where the contact came from. I have, to this date, not called any. You are correct in this case. According to the rules, they should be called. (kind of shoots a hole in my argument)

I will admit when I am wrong, and I do see that not calling multiple fouls is the same as not calling violations when it doesn't seem to have an impact on the outcome of the game.

Interesting how most people would say don't call the violation (which is the position opposite mine), and most people would say call only the first foul... including myself in most cases...

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Ooooh,now Rocky needs a brownpop!

Who's buying?? I think Mick should get the first round...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

Who's buying?? I think Mick should get the first round... [/B][/QUOTE]Geeze,I don't know,Rocky.Ya ever see mick after he's had a couple?

He's almost as bad as that guy from North Carolina-BktBallRef.

[mick]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Who's buying?? I think Mick should get the first round...

Let's light that candle.

[dblref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Who's buying?? I think Mick should get the first round... [/B]

Geeze,I don't know,Rocky.Ya ever see mick after he's had a couple?

He's almost as bad as that guy from North Carolina-BktBallRef.
[/B][/QUOTE]

That "guy for North Carolina" should be feeling pretty good (might even buy the brown pop) now that his Tar Heels are winning (at least until they meet Duke).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by dblref
/B]

That "guy for North Carolina" should be feeling pretty good (might even buy the brown pop) now that his Tar Heels are winning (at least until they meet Duke).

[/B][/QUOTE]That oughta start something!

[Barry C. Morris]

In the interest of civility and good will amongst us fellow refs, please refrain from using the words "DUKE" or "CHRISTIAN LAETTNER" on this board. It brings up bad memories (and part of our lunch) when some members see them.

Go Kentucky Wildcats.

[rockyroad]

Oh come on now...let it go...deep breath...in through the nose, out through the mouth...just console yourself with laughing your arse off everytime you think of Laettner's distinguished NBA career...

Oh, and Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke...I would say Kryz, Krysh, Kyrw,...the coach, but I can't spell it...

[ScottParks]

Originally posted by rockyroad

Who's buying?? I think Mick should get the first round...

If mick's buying, I'm there...


Oh and GO DUKE

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Barry C. Morris

Go Kentucky Wildcats.

Will this keep ya happy,Barry?

I'd like to post one for Rocky for Christian Laettner,but I've never seen one with a player stomping on another player who's laying on the court.