Storm vs. Liberty - Last Night

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is just another person giving an opinion on the play. It just so happens that person has authority on the matter, but it is still just one opinion, nothing more.

Here, that person's opinion means no more than the opinion of anyone else.

Like I said, we can continue debating how to call this at all other levels, but the debate over how it should have been called at this level is pretty much over.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Like I said, we can continue debating how to call this at all other levels, ...

And even that debate will go on without an end b/c it's a judgement call depending on the philosophy of officiating to which you adhere. You can call it a foul in your conference and be just as right me not calling it in mine.

[just another ref]

Is this supervisor incapable of making a mistake? Even on a play which has no clear cut correct answer, but is strictly a judgment call?

Blind obedience?

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is this supervisor incapable of making a mistake? Even on a play which has no clear cut correct answer, but is strictly a judgment call?

Blind obedience?

I don't get what you're hung up on. One's supervisor is the only judgement that matters...even if you think he/her is mistaken. Seems simple enough to me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Blind obedience?

Maybe it's just me, but when the people who sign my check (metaphorically speaking) tell me they want the job done a certain way, I try to comply. The alternative is more time at home.
Maybe that's just my stripes talking, though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

I don't get what you're hung up on. One's supervisor is the only judgement that matters...even if you think he/her is mistaken. Seems simple enough to me.

His hang up is like a lot of others that happen to read a rule in a rulebook and happen to read this site on a regular basis. They cannot distinguish between what they read and the real world application of that rule. It is that simple from my point of view.

Peace

[just another ref]

My hang up is that the discussion went from "the contact was/wasn't sufficient to affect the play and justify a foul call" to "cuz Dad said so."

Somebody important once posted the interpretation that when B1 tips the ball into the backcourt and A1 catches it without allowing it to first hit the floor that it is a violation.

A lot of us still haven't accepted that one.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

His hang up is like a lot of others that happen to read a rule in a rulebook and happen to read this site on a regular basis. They cannot distinguish between what they read and the real world application of that rule. It is that simple from my point of view.

Peace

Mmm, you think a lot of this gives an indication of who would be "yeah but" officials?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

My hang up is that the discussion went from "the contact was/wasn't sufficient to affect the play and justify a foul call" to "cuz Dad said so."

Somebody important once posted the interpretation that when B1 tips the ball into the backcourt and A1 catches it without allowing it to first hit the floor that it is a violation.

A lot of us still haven't accepted that one.

That's a rules debate concerning the misapplication and misinterpretation of said rule.

This discussion is about judgement. You would think you'd be able to distinguish between the two.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Mmm, you think a lot of this gives an indication of who would be "yeah but" officials?

Yep. And those are the guys sitting at home wondering why they cannot get to a certain level or they cannot work for certain people. Unfortunately there are too many of those people. Then they blame their lack of success on politics.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

My hang up is that the discussion went from "the contact was/wasn't sufficient to affect the play and justify a foul call" to "cuz Dad said so."

Somebody important once posted the interpretation that when B1 tips the ball into the backcourt and A1 catches it without allowing it to first hit the floor that it is a violation.

A lot of us still haven't accepted that one.

Well if my dad was in charge of grading my call percentages, and said something is or isn't a foul, then his word is final...I mean you don't have to agree but you'll be getting your calls graded as incorrect.

For some reason, I feel like we're talking about a blarge...something that everyone seems to have no real problem with except you.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

My hang up is that the discussion went from "the contact was/wasn't sufficient to affect the play and justify a foul call" to "cuz Dad said so."

Somebody important once posted the interpretation that when B1 tips the ball into the backcourt and A1 catches it without allowing it to first hit the floor that it is a violation.

A lot of us still haven't accepted that one.

And that somebody doesn't sign any of our checks; metaphorically or otherwise.