Do not change the term to fit your opinion. And this phrase did not come from officiating BTW. Actually my mom used to say this all the time as she was a professor at a university in the town where I grew up and she would say this while on campus there would be students that would just walk across the street and not be cognizant of they cars flying down the street. Her point was that they were right to walk across the street under the law, but they should not assume that the people in the cars were just going to yield.

Peace

I don't have to. I already know that. I'm telling you that.

On the contrary. As Billy posted earlier, it's not part of the game.

The players should just play the damn game without getting sleazy and resorting to fabrications. To simply accept cheating is the reason why this crap still goes on. Just grow a pair and deal with it, even if you have to warn them first.

That has nothing to do with right and wrong. That has everything to do with being cautious.

May not be meant to be part of the GAME, but it is part of the game within the GAME. You referee by the black & white of book if you want & I'll live in the grey, ok. John Adams is big on calling the game by the rules as written. Hearing him critique in a camp setting, he too says "right call, wrong time."

You know how I deal with it? I take my shooters up, down & beyond and KNOW how they got to the floor & I only put whistles on meaningful plays. My bosses dont like GIs :rolleyes:

Should their antics become a problem, absolutely, I will warn them then whack them. I dont have that problem because there's a look I give them to let them know, Not Tonite son!
See the problem with that particular play is, some referees like to watch the flight of the ball, they hear a boom & reward the shooter because he fooled them. If we do our damn jobs & stop falling for the okie-doke maybe the players will come up with something new..

[QUOTE=tref;785199]I've seen the shooter lay down move more & more lately. Have you Td up players for this fool the referee attempt?
Not saying I wont, but to date I have whacked zero. Hey, if he wants to disadvantage his team... thats on him!

I had a play this summer in camp. Player A1 attempts a three point shot, he gets hit in his body by B1 as an airbourne shooter. I have a whistle, no doubt in my mind there's a foul here. I report. Coach B kind of says a little comment, not much. No dialogue.

A few possessions later, B1 is in the corner and shoots a fade away three point shot. A1 jumps at him but lands about 1 foot in front of B1 and is never close to contact. B1 lands on his butt and slides and looks at me with hands raised. I let it go and quite honestly never even thought about calling a T for faking. His coach goes crazy and comes onto the court about four feet and I give him a technical.

With this discussion, I'm wondering if me calling a T on B1 with the original faking, would have been warranted and would have shown Coach B that I am watching all players up, down and through their shot.

Camp evaluator says after the game, I went to watch the other game after you called that T because I knew you could handle your business and didn't really need me to watch anymore. I guess I took that as a compliment.

By the letter of the rule, you would've supported.
In a real game situation I'm staying away from this call.

The coach is always watching the flight of the ball, who cares what they "think." He heard the crash, saw his guy on the floor & wanted the same call on a play that was not similar.

Had you whacked B1, you still would have to whack the coach & probably twice :D

Dont trouble trouble... Dont go looking for trouble... It will find you!

At most, it's semantics. But "unpopular" doesn't quite cut it. Not when your assigner is involved. Point is, the "rule" call can still be the wrong call.

Then you completely missed the point then, because if you are a pedestrian you have the right away in most situations under the law of most jurisdictions. In other words a car that hits you the person driving would be in violation of the law. But if you are dead because you got run over, what good is being right when you are in a grave or what about if you are in the hospital?

It is the same thing we are talking about here as officials. If you make that call and you get fired or you do not get many more games because your judgment is in question, I guess you can stand there and say you applied the rule, but what point did you make when you are not working anymore? Some battles are worth fighting, and others are not. And this is I was told to not be a "rulebook official" because that will get you run out of working more than just about anything.

Peace

Rut, I got your point. I disagree with it strongly.

So what you're saying is, one's desire for assignments should transcend one's integrity. That speaks volumes, doesn't it? Be careful what motivates you, sir.

Calling the game the way my assignor wants is most important to me...assuming I actually like working games that aren't 7th grade girls. The National Federation of High Schools does not give me games.

What does this have to do with integrity? Integrity has nothing to do with calling things that are expected or fit a philosophy in the game or officiating. I will bet my game checks for the next year that if I go to your games you are not calling every infraction to the letter and I am not talking about 3 seconds here, I am talking about player/coach infractions that are technical fouls like in Rule 10-4-1b, "Attempting to influence an official's decision." That takes place every single game and every single call that is close and I doubt you are T'ing up any coach or bench personnel that does that. Or better yet in 10-4-1e, "Objecting to an official's decision by rising from the bench or using gestures." So I guess the travel you "missed" in front of the opponent’s bench and everyone gets up and gives the travel signal you are T'ing up the coach or players that do this?

If you want to question the integrity of people or the judgment of others for having a standard for not calling a T for "faking" a foul no matter when it takes place, then you better call these other things no matter when they take place as well. And I bet if I watched a single game tape of your games I would see these two situations multiple times in some capacity and I you better have a T for the first infraction. After all your integrity is in question right?

All rules have a philosophy. That philosophy might be to call things by the letter and others might be to warn, talk to or address in other ways. That does not mean your integrity is in question. It might mean that you are following the common wisdom of the game.

And by your statement it is clear you did not read the first statement in all rulebooks from the NF that says "The Intent and Purpose of the Rules." It is clear by that statement that the rules need to be applied intelligently and that we should call things that put someone at a clear disadvantage. Sorry, but I do not see a player that takes himself out of a play on the perimeter as putting his opponent at a clear disadvantage.

Peace

Nor do I. However, we're dealing in the realm of unsportsmanlike conduct here.

Does a coach that openly opines how much you "suck" put his opposition at a disadvantage? Does a player who flips off his opposing bench -- or anyone, for that matter -- put his opponent at a disadvantage? Although there's no clear disadvantage in either case, these are instances we cannot let go, so we punish accordingly.

Does flopping create a disadvantage? No, but that's not the point. Flopping is cheating and unsportsmanlike, plain and simple. If you let it go without even a warning, the cheating continues. The only people who could possibly give you grief over calling the flops are those that don't believe cheating is a big deal.

This is a great conversation. I am really enjoying it. But just let whoever live or die with their philosophies pertaining to this play.

And your point is what?

Who said anything about flipping someone off or telling someone they suck? Those are more obvious situations that would be addressed just like flopping with no contact would be.

It could cause an advantage if done in the right situation, but this situation specifically the guy took himself out of the play and gave an open look. Not to say that the actual call was not a good one, but I hope it took place with some previous behavior or that is the standard for this call in that league, area.

OK, keep telling yourself that. I guess the people that claim they never fouled anyone on a call also believe in cheating too? Oh, do you T them when they question your call? After all that is clearly against the rules.

Peace

Wrong, sir. Disrespectfully addressing, gesturing, and attempting to influence the official are against the rules. Questioning is legal, provided it's done civilly. That happens all the time.

We agree about this situation. Still, I'm struggling to think of an example where an actual, physical advantage is gained by flopping. Again, it's all about the unsportsmanlike act, which is what needs to be penalized.

Don't change the subject: he asked whether you T a coach for questioning your call. Your T here is for the disrespect, not the question.