The joys of my evening

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Yup.

And when you work games that have multiple D-I prospects one night and a varsity game the next night where either team could be beaten easily by the freshman teams from the night before, you start to understand that you *have* to adapt from one night to another. Despite what some say, it's not the same game. Not even close.

Rich, I don't think this is what I'm asking about. Of course, specific contact one night might be easy for the D-1 prospect to play through, while the exact same contact the next night will knock the player to the floor. And it's a no-call one night, and a foul the next. I think most of us get that.

With regards to the video play, even you mentioned it won't be a foul in NCAA or some HS games, but it could be a foul in other HS games. I'm not asking about the level of contact, but rather the results - in some HS games the shooter getting knocked to the floor is not a foul, because it was a clean block first, while in other HS games the fact the shooter was knocked to the floor would be the reason for the foul, no matter what happened to the ball. This is the reason for my confusion. Why do they have to be different? Why can't we say a clean block will allow more contact to be deemed incidental, at all levels? Or, why do we have to allow more contact at some levels, because it's "expected"?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Rich, I don't think this is what I'm asking about. Of course, specific contact one night might be easy for the D-1 prospect to play through, while the exact same contact the next night will knock the player to the floor. And it's a no-call one night, and a foul the next. I think most of us get that.

With regards to the video play, even you mentioned it won't be a foul in NCAA or some HS games, but it could be a foul in other HS games. I'm not asking about the level of contact, but rather the results - in some HS games the shooter getting knocked to the floor is not a foul, because it was a clean block first, while in other HS games the fact the shooter was knocked to the floor would be the reason for the foul, no matter what happened to the ball. This is the reason for my confusion. Why do they have to be different? Why can't we say a clean block will allow more contact to be deemed incidental, at all levels? Or, why do we have to allow more contact at some levels, because it's "expected"?

Again, I think maybe I wasn't communicating well. My point was that the officials assigned to that smaller school game (who are more likely to be officials that work fewer varsity games or ONLY work at the small schools) may well call that a foul. I'd prefer they didn't and I'd be doing my best to apply the same standard on one night as the other, but I'm just being realistic -- I don't think that's happening.

I believe in trying to let girls (heaven forbid) play through contact, too, and that drives a lot of players and coaches nuts and I just don't understand that. A monkey could officiate games where ALL contact is called -- that's not what we're out there for. One girls coach I've heard speak at a camp where I was a clinician gets it -- she's said, "I hate officials that call a completely different game in a girls game than in a boys game." I'm not saying that the advantage/disadvantage threshold may not end up being different, but they go out with the intention of calling the girls game "tighter" and that drives that coach crazy.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Again, I think maybe I wasn't communicating well. My point was that the officials assigned to that smaller school game (who are more likely to be officials that work fewer varsity games or ONLY work at the small schools) may well call that a foul. I'd prefer they didn't and I'd be doing my best to apply the same standard on one night as the other, but I'm just being realistic -- I don't think that's happening.

I believe in trying to let girls (heaven forbid) play through contact, too, and that drives a lot of players and coaches nuts and I just don't understand that. A monkey could officiate games where ALL contact is called -- that's not what we're out there for. One girls coach I've heard speak at a camp where I was a clinician gets it -- she's said, "I hate officials that call a completely different game in a girls game than in a boys game." I'm not saying that the advantage/disadvantage threshold may not end up being different, but they go out with the intention of calling the girls game "tighter" and that drives that coach crazy.

Ok, well maybe we're not that far apart after all. I agree with what you've said above.

So, you must be a Cub fan too.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ok, well maybe we're not that far apart after all. I agree with what you've said above.

So, you must be a Cub fan too.

No, Phillies. And a Brewers 20-game plan holder.

[Jurassic Referee]

And what's really funny to me is when I watch the D1 guys that I consider excellent officials, none of 'em seem to come in with the pre-conceived notions that I've been reading in the last few pages. They all seem to just call each play separately and individually on it's own merits without saying "Oh, he got the ball. That can't be a foul." If they feel the contact was illegal, they just call it. And the amazing part is they also call it before the ball goes in too, without worrying about "patient whistles", etc.


Novel idea, ain't it?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And what's really funny to me is when I watch the D1 guys that I consider excellent officials, none of 'em seem to come in with the pre-conceived notions that I've been reading in the last few pages. They all seem to just call each play separately and individually on it's own merits without saying "Oh, he got the ball. That can't be a foul." If they feel the contact was illegal, they just call it. And the amazing part is they also call it before the ball goes in too, without worrying about "patient whistles", etc.


Novel idea, ain't it?

I believe in the patient whistle, but whether the ball goes in has no bearing whatsoever on whether I call a foul. The patient whistle, to me, has always meant that we don't anticipate calls. Let the play start, develop, finish, decide, call (or no call). I don't look at the ball going through the hoop and say, "Screw it, he scored anyway. Let's not stop the game with a pointless "and-one." And yet I have heard other officials say that they've had too many "and ones" whatever that means. I don't care if I have 0 or 10 as long as the foul called is one where the foul put the shooter at a disadvantage (which has nothing to do with the ball not going in the hole, IMO).

I certainly do think D1/NBA officials will see a clean, athletic block up top and will consider that as part of the decision making process, so I guess we'll have to disagree there. It's a great defensive play -- it doesn't give the player license to be out of control or flatten the shooter, but some contact on the way down isn't necessarily going to be a foul, either. We make fun of the NBA(E) all the time, but those guys are excellent play callers when it comes to fouls, IMO. YMMV.

Off to do a game.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And what's really funny to me is when I watch the D1 guys that I consider excellent officials, none of 'em seem to come in with the pre-conceived notions that I've been reading in the last few pages. They all seem to just call each play separately and individually on it's own merits without saying "Oh, he got the ball. That can't be a foul." If they feel the contact was illegal, they just call it. And the amazing part is they also call it before the ball goes in too, without worrying about "patient whistles", etc.


Novel idea, ain't it?

I'm not a D1 guy you would see on TV. But I also do not have a pre-conceived notion. I said specifically on the NBA play that was posted that I have supervisors and observers who would not want that specific play called as a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And what's really funny to me is when I watch the D1 guys that I consider excellent officials, none of 'em seem to come in with the pre-conceived notions that I've been reading in the last few pages. They all seem to just call each play separately and individually on it's own merits without saying "Oh, he got the ball. That can't be a foul." If they feel the contact was illegal, they just call it. And the amazing part is they also call it before the ball goes in too, without worrying about "patient whistles", etc.


Novel idea, ain't it?

Whether they have pre-conceived notions or not, I have not see said play called a foul when there is a clean block in the conferences I watch. Again, I have seen fouls called when the block was not clean, but I have seen that play on SportsCenter many times not called a foul. So whatever you want to believe is up to you. But I go to camps where I have seen guys that we see on TV often and I know what they have said about plays that I have called when they are observing. No one here that disagrees with you as pulled this out of the air.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Whether they have pre-conceived notions or not, I have not see said play called a foul when there is a clean block in the conferences I watch.

I have...in every D1 conference I've watched. By the big dawgs too. And that includes your Chicago area big dawgs also btw.

The definition of a foul is illegal contact on an opponent. It doesn't say anywhere that the exact SAME illegal contact magically becomes legal if a defender touches the ball. If you think hammering an airborne shooter into the fifth row is always legal if the defender got the ball, hey, feel free to call it that way.

We've hit the usual logjam on this ever-recurring discussion. We just don't agree philosophically.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by m&m guy

i'm not asking about the level of contact, but rather the results

+1