let the play finish?

[Tio]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I wonder, though if this whole "let the play develop" philosophy may be starting going by the wayside.

John Adams was interviewed in Slam magazine recently and said basically he'd like to see the NCAA move away from officiating being an art and a philosophy and become more of a science.



Link

I say this... fouls are fouls. But putting the whistle on the finish of a play helps us save some whistles on 50/50 plays. This is not what John Adams is referring to with this quote. He is referring to plays being called differently in different college conferences. Or officials using "philosophies" not backed up by the rule book or official's manual. Anyone who has watched a Big East game 5-10 years ago know that they took the "no blood no foul" rule to an extreme. John Adams wants plays called consistently in any of his gyms.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Tio

This is not what John Adams is referring to with this quote. He is referring to plays being called differently in different college conferences.

I'm not following you. Where does it say that's what John Adams is referring to with his quote?

[tref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm not following you. Where does it say that's what John Adams is referring to with his quote?

Quote:
What Adams has been trying to weed out of the college game, among other things, is the hand check by the defender with the referee waiting to see if it disrupts the play. Adams insists a foul is a foul, whether the dribbler loses control or not. It used to be calls were made along the lines of “advantage/disadvantage.” Interpretation: There had to be some mayhem for a foul to be called.

Having a patient whistle on SDF plays is not what he was referring to, not having an immediate whistle for RSBQ plays is. There's a difference.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tref

Quote:
What Adams has been trying to weed out of the college game, among other things, is the hand check by the defender with the referee waiting to see if it disrupts the play. Adams insists a foul is a foul, whether the dribbler loses control or not. It used to be calls were made along the lines of “advantage/disadvantage.” Interpretation: There had to be some mayhem for a foul to be called.

Having a patient whistle on SDF plays is not what he was referring to, not having an immediate whistle for RSBQ plays is. There's a difference.

I'm a huge fan of RSBQ thinking. I know I've called more fouls up top (and more consistently, too) in the past few years.

I've changed quite a bit -- I'd look for reasons to not call fouls instead of taking the game as it happens. If I have a game with 10 fouls, great. If I happen to have one with 40, well, it's less great, but it is what it is.

[tref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm a huge fan of RSBQ thinking. I know I've called more fouls up top (and more consistently, too) in the past few years.

I've changed quite a bit -- I'd look for reasons to not call fouls instead of taking the game as it happens. If I have a game with 10 fouls, great. If I happen to have one with 40, well, it's less great, but it is what it is.

Yezzir, RSBQ guidelines on the perimeter & SDF guidelines below the FT line extended or on passer contact makes it easier to make quality decisions.

Getting all 3 to buy into that becomes the bigger challenge.