Situational Officiating

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I think it's better let the game be decided in regulation than OT.

I don't think this is relevant.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think this is relevant.

I simply meant that officials are under no obligation to make sure close games go to, and are decided in overtime.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I simply meant that officials are under no obligation to make sure close games go to, and are decided in overtime.

I agree with that.

[Duffman]

My HS coach once taught me that if the game was decided late by an officials decision it was my own damn fault for letting the game be that close to begin with. I wish more coaches would teach that lesson.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Duffman

My HS coach once taught me that if the game was decided late by an officials decision it was my own damn fault for letting the game be that close to begin with.

He's partially correct.

Your coach's message is spot on, in that, if you score more points, a late call doesn't affect your goal of winning as much. A game is always decided by the totality of play -- 32 minutes (overtime notwithstanding).

A game is never decided by one call or one play. Everything that happened prior to a late call affects the outcome just as much as that call. Our brains can only take in so much, so naturally, everything gets magnified in the last few minutes. In reality, though, when a game is close, something you kicked in the first quarter could affect the outcome just as much as the end. The big difference is, few people will remember the beginning, and are far more likely to get caught up in the drama at the end.

[APG]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Our brains can only take in so much, so naturally, everything gets magnified in the last few minutes. In reality, though, when a game is close, something you kicked in the first quarter could affect the outcome just as much as the end. The big difference is, few people will remember the beginning, and are far more likely to get caught up in the drama at the end.

I'd say it's more that a team at the end doesn't have as much of a chance to recover from a mistake/missed called at the end of the games than at the beginning of the game.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bainsey

... In reality, though, when a game is close, something you kicked in the first quarter could affect the outcome just as much as the end. The big difference is, few people will remember the beginning, and are far more likely to get caught up in the drama at the end.

In reality a call you kick in the last 2 minutes is going to affect future assignments far more than a call you kick in the 1st half.

You kick a call in the first half and your supervisor will likely chalk it off as a brain-fart or a temporary lapse in concentration. Kick a call in the last 2 minutes of a nail-biter then the supervisor may begin to question whether you can handle the pressure.

[Adam]

Yep, and the fact is, costing a team two points in the first quarter does not have the same effect as improperly waving off a buzzer beater.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In reality a call you kick in the last 2 minutes is going to affect future assignments far more than a call you kick in the 1st half.

You kick a call in the first half and your supervisor will likely chalk it off as a brain-fart or a temporary lapse in concentration. Kick a call in the last 2 minutes of a nail-biter then the supervisor may begin to question whether you can handle the pressure.

Exactly right. Those that say "a foul in the first half is the same as a foul at the end" are absolutely correct -- but the corollary to this is that a mistake in the first half isn't going to be viewed the same as a mistake at the end of the game.

Perception is reality in many cases. One thing I noticed as the years go on is that we get to the end in a close game and I'm the calmest person in the house. That doesn't happen overnight.