Timekeeper sneaking in subs

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I don't know about you, but I've been taught not to stare at the dribbler in this situation but to look up the court and find the first defender. So no, I'm not watching his feet and no I'm probably not going to see the travel well enough to call it. If you choose not to believe that, that's fine, but it is the truth.
.

When the defender is 40' away, there isn't much you need to be looking at other than the ball handler. It doesn't take any time to detect that they are not near the play. You have only 1 responsibility at that point...the ball and the ball handler. To say you're not going to see it because your focus is elsewhere is disingenuous at best. You're essentially closing your eyes to a potential violation....which is no better than not calling one that you do see because the game is so far out of reach that calling it would benefit no one.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If calling the game according to the rules means I don't "progress," that's just fine by me. I'm not in this gig for the glory of the games I get. I'm in it because I like sports and I enjoy the work.

There are the "rules" and there are the "right" calls. Sometimes, the correct call is not the right call. There is far more to the game than the book.

You may see me debate many points on this forum in a very technical rulebook stance but that doesn't mean I call them by the letter on the floor. Rules need to be understood inside and out, not just from a technical perspective, but from an intent and purpose perspective and, furthermore, from the perspective of how to intelligently apply them. The ability to apply them intelligently requires the full technical understanding but it doesn't mean you always call everything you see. Black and white application is easy, anyone can do it, but accepting that nearly every rule in the book has some wiggle room in the right circumstances will serve both you and the game much better.

Understanding of that has been something that I had to acquire. Once I did, I was able to officiate a much better game...not simply in blowouts but in close games too.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There are the "rules" and there are the "right" calls. Sometimes, the correct call is not the right call. There is far more to the game than the book.

You may see me debate many points on this forum in a very technical rulebook stance but that doesn't mean I call them by the letter on the floor. Rules need to be understood inside and out, not just from a technical perspective, but from an intent and purpose perspective and, furthermore, from the perspective of how to intelligently apply them. The ability to apply them intelligently requires the full technical understanding but it doesn't mean you always call everything you see. Black and white application is easy, anyone can do it, but accepting that nearly every rule in the book has some wiggle room in the right circumstances will serve both you and the game much better.

Understanding of that has been something that I had to acquire. Once I did, I was able to officiate a much better game...not simply in blowouts but in close games too.

I agree. I disagree that stopping the game to allow substitutions fits inside the concept of intelligently applying the rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I agree. I disagree that stopping the game to allow substitutions fits inside the concept of intelligently applying the rules.

I would agree with that too...I'm not blowing the whistle for that just to get the subs in. That is carrying it too far IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Now you're just making things up. I said I would, and I have even this season, call travelling in a lop sided game on the losing team with no defender in the backcourt. I don't see how saying I might not always catch it makes me looking for excuses.

I don't deliberately set aside rules, and neither should any referee.

I believe you do call those travels against the lopsided loser. Do you call 3 seconds by the book? Do you call any multiple fouls, or do you pick one when there are multiple players who foul a shooter?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I agree. I disagree that stopping the game to allow substitutions fits inside the concept of intelligently applying the rules.

I agree. But it doesn't mean the officials who do it are showing a lack of integrity.

[ODJ]

Kids want to play, even the least on the bench. Let them in, and move on.

[Eastshire]

I've been thinking about this thread for a while now, and I'm convinced that I was wrong.

I want to specifically apologize to Adam and OKREF and generally to anyone else I may have offended.

I think it's wrong to allow the subs, but I was wrong to say doing so was an integrity issue.