What high school coaches want

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If this means when the last call was a block, the next call should also be a block, I can't disagree enough.

Not to me.
It means that you can't have an illegal screen on white and then go down the court and miss one on blue. You can't penalize blue for carrying the ball or three seconds in the lane, when you have passed on the same things by white during the last few trips.
Taken in that context it makes better sense and has merit.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not to me.
It means that you can't have an illegal screen on white and then go down the court and miss one on blue. You can't penalize blue for carrying the ball or three seconds in the lane, when you have passed on the same things by white during the last few trips.

The last few trips part is not relevant. There should be consistency throughout the game.


It's the "similar plays should/must be called alike" philosophy that makes me cringe.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The last few trips part is not relevant. There should be consistency throughout the game.


It's the "similar plays should/must be called alike" philosophy that makes me cringe.

The comment expressed by the group of coaches which we are discussing was "watch back-to-back calls."
So we are not talking about consistency throughout the game. That is desirable in its own right, but not pertinent to this specific concern being expressed by the coaches. They are trying to say that one thing that makes coaches upset is when calls during a short timeframe aren't handled in an equitable manner. People may not remember the call made back in the first quarter during the middle of the 3rd, but they certainly do recall what happened during the last couple of trips up and down the floor, so that action most certainly is relevant here.

To not think so is to fail to understand what the coaches are trying to communicate.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not to me.
It means that you can't have an illegal screen on white and then go down the court and miss one on blue. You can't penalize blue for carrying the ball or three seconds in the lane, when you have passed on the same things by white during the last few trips.
Taken in that context it makes better sense and has merit.

For me, it makes sense. A crew has no chance of being consistent throughout an entire game if they can't be consistent for smaller chunks.

I take all this with a grain of salt, but we can't have similar things called differently at each end of the floor or by crewmates and instill any confidence in the coaches and participants.

[MD Longhorn]

Similar is not equal. What looks similar to a coach may not be the same at all from our perspective. Just because the close call on one end was a block doesn't mean the close call on the other end is not a charge.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Similar is not equal. What looks similar to a coach may not be the same at all from our perspective. Just because the close call on one end was a block doesn't mean the close call on the other end is not a charge.

And yet, WE know what's similar. So how about applying the proper filter to what the coaches are saying and at least make sure we are consistently applying the rules and philosophies...