RedDirtFan wrote:Officials should work their own areas during district and regional tournaments, then send the best of the best to the state tournament.
I say this because the reduction in refined skill has resulted in a faster and more physical game and outside officials can end up picking on some kids unintentionally. Officials from the surrounding area know the players and what they are capable of doing without fouling. When 3 non-local guys from another association come in for tournament time, you almost always see foul trouble not commonly seen in season play. It isn't their fault, but it isn't the kids' fault either, and they and their teams shouldn't be affected by it. Put officials who have seen the kids play out there.
RedDirtFan wrote:Officials should work their own areas during district and regional tournaments, then send the best of the best to the state tournament.
I say this because the reduction in refined skill has resulted in a faster and more physical game and outside officials can end up picking on some kids unintentionally. Officials from the surrounding area know the players and what they are capable of doing without fouling. When 3 non-local guys from another association come in for tournament time, you almost always see foul trouble not commonly seen in season play. It isn't their fault, but it isn't the kids' fault either, and they and their teams shouldn't be affected by it. Put officials who have seen the kids play out there.
EHS1998 wrote:
I think I understand the point you are making, but isn't a foul a foul, a travel a travel, etc. regardless of speed or physicality of the game? When I hear, "officials know the players and what they are capable of..." I get nervous because I don't want referees to ever adjust calls based on a player. I've always had a pet peeve regarding officials feeling the need to adjust the rules (for example: letting smaller players hold and push a bigger or faster player) in order to help even the playing field. The "how else are they going to guard them" rationale has never held water with me. From my perspective, I think getting fresh, unbiased eyes would generally be a good thing but understand the logistical ramifications of making this happen.
For what its worth, the refereeing I have witnessed this year, with a sample size of 30+ games, has really been pretty good overall.
EHS1998 wrote:I think I understand the point you are making, but isn't a foul a foul, a travel a travel, etc. regardless of speed or physicality of the game? When I hear, "officials know the players and what they are capable of..." I get nervous because I don't want referees to ever adjust calls based on a player. I've always had a pet peeve regarding officials feeling the need to adjust the rules (for example: letting smaller players hold and push a bigger or faster player) in order to help even the playing field. The "how else are they going to guard them" rationale has never held water with me. From my perspective, I think getting fresh, unbiased eyes would generally be a good thing but understand the logistical ramifications of making this happen.
For what its worth, the refereeing I have witnessed this year, with a sample size of 30+ games, has really been pretty good overall.
RedDirtFan wrote: Say that player A drives into the lane, but doesn't have the vertical that player B has, and player A gets his layup attempt swatted away by player B rather easily even with some lower body contact.
EHS1998 wrote:RedDirtFan wrote: Say that player A drives into the lane, but doesn't have the vertical that player B has, and player A gets his layup attempt swatted away by player B rather easily even with some lower body contact.
You make an extremely compelling argument but I have a hard time getting on board with this. How can a ref determine that an advantage was not gained when contact was made? Not certain I would ever be comfortable with that level of subjectivity by high school refs, whether they are familiar with the players or not.
RedDirtFan wrote:EHS1998 wrote:RedDirtFan wrote: Say that player A drives into the lane, but doesn't have the vertical that player B has, and player A gets his layup attempt swatted away by player B rather easily even with some lower body contact.
You make an extremely compelling argument but I have a hard time getting on board with this. How can a ref determine that an advantage was not gained when contact was made? Not certain I would ever be comfortable with that level of subjectivity by high school refs, whether they are familiar with the players or not.
My point isn't so much about the contact as it is that player A took a bad shot and should not be rewarded for it just because a slight bump happened when player B blocked the shot easily. Does that help?
RedDirtFan wrote: It all boils down to a basic rule--did the incident of contact create a disadvantage for the either player? If not, it's not a foul.
ndlionsfan wrote:RedDirtFan wrote: It all boils down to a basic rule--did the incident of contact create a disadvantage for the either player? If not, it's not a foul.
That's the biggest thing people don't understand. Not all contact is a foul.
RedDirtFan wrote:
And I'm no rules expert, myself, but if people would just put in the effort to learning about the way the game is officiated, so many things would be easier for the general fan to understand. There are very, very few bad calls in a basketball game. In my opinion, the majority of bad calls come when refs are not familiar with teams and players, so it isn't even their fault. With the way the game is played today, important games need to be officiated by officials who are one of two things: 1. Among the best in the nearby association or state or 2. Familiar with both teams and the players on each team.
And there are a lot of great officials in this state, at that. The very best do stand out, of course, but I wouldn't say there's much separation between any of them. The younger or less experienced do have their struggles, but put yourself in their shoes. The game is more physical than it's ever been.
classB4ever wrote:RedDirtFan wrote:
And I'm no rules expert, myself, but if people would just put in the effort to learning about the way the game is officiated, so many things would be easier for the general fan to understand. There are very, very few bad calls in a basketball game. In my opinion, the majority of bad calls come when refs are not familiar with teams and players, so it isn't even their fault. With the way the game is played today, important games need to be officiated by officials who are one of two things: 1. Among the best in the nearby association or state or 2. Familiar with both teams and the players on each team.
And there are a lot of great officials in this state, at that. The very best do stand out, of course, but I wouldn't say there's much separation between any of them. The younger or less experienced do have their struggles, but put yourself in their shoes. The game is more physical than it's ever been.
So let me understand this. You are saying that the best reffing comes when the refs know the players well? Know their tendencies? Wow. Is there a possibility they might start anticipating calls? Is there a possibility they could generate a bias?
A police officer moves from Grafton to Fargo. Out on his new beat, he and his new partner witness a shoplifter. He moves in for the arrest and his new partner asks, "What are you doing?" He says, "I am going to arrest that shoplifter." His new partner says, "Oh, no, you don't have to. His dad is important around here. He does that all the time and we just let him do it."
A foul is a foul. A violation is a violation. How you ref a game can be interpreted. But if a ref needs to know players to do his best reffing, we are in trouble.
classB4ever wrote:So let me understand this. You are saying that the best reffing comes when the refs know the players well? Know their tendencies? Wow. Is there a possibility they might start anticipating calls? Is there a possibility they could generate a bias?
A police officer moves from Grafton to Fargo. Out on his new beat, he and his new partner witness a shoplifter. He moves in for the arrest and his new partner asks, "What are you doing?" He says, "I am going to arrest that shoplifter." His new partner says, "Oh, no, you don't have to. His dad is important around here. He does that all the time and we just let him do it."
A foul is a foul. A violation is a violation. How you ref a game can be interpreted. But if a ref needs to know players to do his best reffing, we are in trouble.
RedDirtFan wrote:
Holy exaggeration, Batman. The physicality of today's game makes it paramount that officials know the teams and players in order to understand their athletic capabilities. That's not called bias, that's improving through observation, and it's necessary in today's high school ball.
RedDirtFan wrote:classB4ever wrote:So let me understand this. You are saying that the best reffing comes when the refs know the players well? Know their tendencies? Wow. Is there a possibility they might start anticipating calls? Is there a possibility they could generate a bias?
A police officer moves from Grafton to Fargo. Out on his new beat, he and his new partner witness a shoplifter. He moves in for the arrest and his new partner asks, "What are you doing?" He says, "I am going to arrest that shoplifter." His new partner says, "Oh, no, you don't have to. His dad is important around here. He does that all the time and we just let him do it."
A foul is a foul. A violation is a violation. How you ref a game can be interpreted. But if a ref needs to know players to do his best reffing, we are in trouble.
Holy exaggeration, Batman. The physicality of today's game makes it paramount that officials know the teams and players in order to understand their athletic capabilities. That's not called bias, that's improving through observation, and it's necessary in today's high school ball.
RedDirtFan wrote:EHS1998 wrote:I think I understand the point you are making, but isn't a foul a foul, a travel a travel, etc. regardless of speed or physicality of the game? When I hear, "officials know the players and what they are capable of..." I get nervous because I don't want referees to ever adjust calls based on a player. I've always had a pet peeve regarding officials feeling the need to adjust the rules (for example: letting smaller players hold and push a bigger or faster player) in order to help even the playing field. The "how else are they going to guard them" rationale has never held water with me. From my perspective, I think getting fresh, unbiased eyes would generally be a good thing but understand the logistical ramifications of making this happen.
For what its worth, the refereeing I have witnessed this year, with a sample size of 30+ games, has really been pretty good overall.
Absolutely not. Fouls are as open to interpretation as anything, which is the biggest consistency issue in class B right now (Keep in mind that I would absolutely state that Class B is officiated very very well in general, even with this inconsistency). For example, on night one the crew understands the block/charge rule very well, but the next night you've got some guy in the crew who thinks he's reffing an NBA game so he's all but forgotten what a blocking foul is. And that's just one rule example among many. Some officials give good shot blockers the benefit of the doubt, while others are more likely to blow the whistle nearly every a blocked shot happens. It all boils down to a basic rule--did the incident of contact create a disadvantage for the either player? If not, it's not a foul. Say that player A drives into the lane, but doesn't have the vertical that player B has, and player A gets his layup attempt swatted away by player B rather easily even with some lower body contact. Should player B be punished for blocking a shot that had no chance to ever get over him? Absolutely not, and therein lies one difference between officials who have seen teams play and those who haven't--officials who know the two teams on the court know who the great athletes are who can do things like that. You also have players who are adept at stealing the ball, players who know how to draw charges by establishing guarding position rather than sliding underneath an offensive player, etc, etc.
Say team A has one player who never had more than 3 fouls throughout the season, but all of a sudden it's a Region tournament game and he's got 3 fouls with 6 minutes to go in the first half, and 4 fouls with 5 minutes to go in the third quarter, and it happens because you've got one or two guys in the officiating crew who haven't officiated his team before that day. Don't you think that might happen more often if you throw guys out there who are unfamiliar with the teams and players?
I understand that we do see plenty of familiar faces come tournament time, so don't take this post as me saying that something should be changed. I'm just stating that the idea of pulling guys over to different areas where they don't generally officiate is a bad idea.
winner-within wrote:
the one thing I do know (being team captain) is there is less communication between refs and and team captains once the game is underway now days then there used to be....and I believe that stems from in school now days where a kid is not supposed to voice and opinion this day in age....there is always room for improvement in any job or activity in life....
The Schwab wrote:
The only things I ask from officials on a day to day basis is
1. Be consistent (Both ways and if it's a foul in the 1st it needs to be a foul in the 4th)
2. Hustle
3. If you make a mistake or miss a call and you realize it, admit it to the coach, they will respect you a lot more.
classB4ever wrote:RedDirtFan wrote:
Holy exaggeration, Batman. The physicality of today's game makes it paramount that officials know the teams and players in order to understand their athletic capabilities. That's not called bias, that's improving through observation, and it's necessary in today's high school ball.
No, no, no. You do not adjust the rules to the game. You adjust the game to the rules. If you need to change the rules, then change them so everyone can follow the same rules, equally. You don't do it on the run and you don't allow for each official to interpret the rules as they see fit. What you are saying is preposterous and why officials get in trouble in the first place. Your ideas are why players and coaches get frustrated and why tempers flare. They get away with it one time and then they think they should get away with it every time. When they don't, they get angry and things get out of hand. Call the game consistent and as close to the rule book as possible and then you don't even realize the refs are there and you can enjoy watching the game and the players.
RedDirtFan wrote:
Yes yes yes yes yes. There is leeway in basketball rules because of what happens on the floor in regard to the rules. Say player A slides under player B to try and draw a charge, never establishing guarding position, but player B lowers his shoulder and rams player A over. It's almost always called as an offensive foul despite player A failing to establish guarding position. Without that leeway, you'd see more offensive players barreling over defenders.
You guys are looking at rules as black and white rules. The nature of the game proves otherwise.
classB4ever wrote:RedDirtFan wrote:
Yes yes yes yes yes. There is leeway in basketball rules because of what happens on the floor in regard to the rules. Say player A slides under player B to try and draw a charge, never establishing guarding position, but player B lowers his shoulder and rams player A over. It's almost always called as an offensive foul despite player A failing to establish guarding position. Without that leeway, you'd see more offensive players barreling over defenders.
You guys are looking at rules as black and white rules. The nature of the game proves otherwise.
That made me laugh. Good come back.
Honestly, when breaking down plays like you mentioned above, it isn't that hard to call. If player A did not establish a defensive position, it is a block. Once position is established, it's torso past torso. Very simple. Here's my problem. Offensive players driving the lane, initiating the contact into a player who has established a legal defensive position and remains "vertical" during the blocking of a shot. The defensive player almost always gets called. Benefit of the doubt usually goes to the offensive player. I think defensive players have gotten much better with "verticality" and it just seems the offensive players get away with more out of control play. Just an opinion. I simply do not agree with your earlier statements concerning refs knowing players. In my opinion, it's just opposite. On this, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests