Block/charge and game situation

[deecee]

I agree with the above sentiment. I get really peeved when I hear guys talk like that.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by zm1283

He calls a three second violation against the visitors in the 4th quarter when they're down 40+...

...but I can choose not to call a three second violation on them and no one is the wiser.

Plus the potential for injury is MUCH higher on the charge that gets ignored or switched to a block than the ignored 3 second violation. I know it's a "duh" thing but there it is.

[stick]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Was lead in transition on a fast break, one defender (a1) in front of the ball handler (B1), I am maybe 15 feet from the play with good angle and can see space between them. Defender is running backwards and slows. Ball handler lowers shoulder and pretty much runs A1 over. Never went air borne for the shot. I come up with an easy peasy lemon squeasy PC. I hear it from the crowd. Small crowd in large gym and one dude is just hollering "read a rule book" for like a minute after the play, which was pretty comical. Any way team A was up about twenty points and this was in the third quarter. My play was similar to the St. Mary's/BYU play in another thread.

After the game, one of our other officials whom I respect and think is an excellent official and works many state playoff games every year, asked me about the play. I told him what I had and he said "you should have called a block. Calling a charge on the team who is down isn't the best game management move. Show the coach a little love."

Now I am all for letting some stuff go on a time who is down 20 so as not to rub salt in a wound, minor travels, a minor hand check away from the basket etc. but this was a PC foul all day every day. I wouldn't have even dared to no call it because B1 lowered his shoulder and A1 went down.

I asked him "take score out of the equation. What if it is tied or A is ahead?" He said, "Charge." Anybody have any comments or thoughts on this philosophy?

I believe that philosophy is simply a--inine. It sounds like you did the right thing--called what you saw. Debating what constitutes a block compared to a charge may be one thing but why penalize a defender who by your description did it right and who may work at it in practice just because their up by 20 points? I think whoever this guy was you officiated with should write his own rule book.

[stick]

Originally Posted by deecee

I agree with the above sentiment. I get really peeved when I hear guys talk like that.

Count me in with that also. Earlier this year in the 3rd qtr in a BV game I came to find out that after I called a foul on the "star" of this team, it was his 4th foul. During a TO one of my partners called the 2 of us over and stated "he has 4 and since he's their best player lets not foul him out." exact words. I didn't say anything but to me that's bs.

[rockyroad]

Like it or not, that WAS the philosophy...about 15 years ago. Sounds like this "experienced official" hasn't quite caught up with the times!

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Anybody have any comments or thoughts on this philosophy?

Clearly your partner doesn't mean "call EVERY play in the favor of the team that is losing by 25+ points"....

My threshold for the "kill the loser with kindness"-philosophy is somewhere in the 60%-40% range. IOW, judgement plays that are slightly over a 50%-50% ratio of going either way...I'm giving to the team that is losing. You can't be too obvious in "giving the benefit of the doubt" to the losing team.....

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Clearly your partner doesn't mean "call EVERY play in the favor of the team that is losing by 25+ points"....

My threshold for the "kill the loser with kindness"-philosophy is somewhere in the 60%-40% range. IOW, judgement plays that are slightly over a 50%-50% ratio of going either way...I'm giving to the team that is losing. You can't be too obvious in "giving the benefit of the doubt" to the losing team.....

Too much thinking. The game will end eventually. Just call it.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Rich

Too much thinking. The game will end eventually. Just call it.

If managing a lopsided game is considered "too much thinking", then I plead "guilty'.

It takes no more energy/effort to take into account the game situation on plays than it does to remember the same/similar play occurring earlier in a game and making sure that similar plays have similar results.

The BEST officials have excellent game awareness and play recall.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

If managing a lopsided game is considered "too much thinking", then I plead "guilty'.

It takes no more energy/effort to take into account the game situation on plays than it does to remember the same/similar play occurring earlier in a game and making sure that similar plays have similar results.

The BEST officials have excellent game awareness and play recall.

The best officials call the game and don't give "60/40" calls to the losing team. Unless you mean something different by "60/40" than I'm envisioning.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Rich

The best officials call the game and don't give "60/40" calls to the losing team. Unless you mean something different by "60/40" than I'm envisioning.

in a 25pt+ blowout where the outcome is clearly decided....you're envisioning exactly what I'm thinking/doing.

[MD Longhorn]

Failing to call a minor violation (3 sec, ticky-tack stuff) against a team that's getting trounced is one thing. Making a call for the wrong team at a point when something has to be called one way or the other (block/charge; ball went out off white instead of red, etc) is a completely different thing.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Rich

OP, film don't lie. When the defensive coach clips that one play and sends it to your assignor / supervisor / state, good luck explaining away the call.

I think this is probably the most important thing beside getting the call right for the kids.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Adam

If it's 50/50, I might lean towards the team trailing (the expectation). Otherwise, no way I'm penalizing a kid for getting steamrolled when he did nothing illegal.

If I'm approached by a "senior" official afterwards and he suggests otherwise, I'll just nod in agreement and throw it into my mental trash can.

My thoughts exactly.


Done and done.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Like it or not, that WAS the philosophy...about 15 years ago. Sounds like this "experienced official" hasn't quite caught up with the times!

A1, and B1, go for a rebound. B1 has inside position. A1, from behind, gives B1 a little push, causing B1 miss possessing the rebound, and also causing him to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds.

Thirty years ago, back in the olden days, this was a easy call. Ignore the contact, but give Team B the ball for a throwin. I made this call dozens of times.

Today. Different story. Now we have to chose. Foul on A1, or throwin for Team A. No other choices here.

It's a different world. Like JRutledge said, it's the "Video Age".