BeaverNTN

This post was made in the Wrestling Forum, but I believe it should be posted here as well. Perhaps everyone could learn a lesson from this coach.

Most of the fans I hear are saying both, depending on which team has the ball.

Well, most of the time we would rather be in the stands, since you guys obviously have a better view of the game than we do.

Probably just to irritate you.

Well, if it wasn't, I don't know why the TSSAA official's manual would show the hand signal for reporting it.

Two experienced officials would never be watching the area covered by the third guy. They would have no idea what was going on where the foul was called, or not called, because they would be too busy watching their own area. Sorry to shoot down your theory. You don't have three guys out there watching the ball for 32 minutes. You have three guys watching their area of responsibility. Its almost funny how everyone who complains about officiating actually knows very little about it.

Classic response from a class act. For some reason I thought a well thought out response to a valid question might make sense. Apparently I was wrong. I hope your post doesn't keep me from going back to the state tournament this year.

To add to this, do you discipline an official based on a coaches opinion of the way the game was called, or do you send an association supervisor to each and every game being played and let them decide who needs to be disciplined? The problem with the first idea is that you will not get an unbiased opinion of the officiating from a coach, generally speaking. If he won, he isn't going to question anything about the game, generally speaking. If he lost, he is probably going to list the officiating as one of the reasons. This is a broad statement, and is definitely not true in all cases. The more experienced coaches will give a pretty fair assessment of officiating regardless of a win or a loss. These are usually the same coaches that aren't yelling at the referees the entire game. The problem with the second approach is there simply isn't the manpower available to send a supervisor to every game. This is why veteran officials are on the floor with the newer guys. They can work with them, and in cases of major foul ups, you can guarantee they are reporting what they saw back to a supervisor. My point is this. Officiating is not an exact science. There is a great deal of judgement involved. Some have it, some learn it, and the rest fall to the wayside eventually. The system is about as good as it can be. It will never be perfect, nor should anyone expect it to be. Guys have to learn the ropes somewhere, and if you think your team fell victim to a bad call by an new official, you are probably right. But most will learn from their mistakes on the car ride home and become a better official for it.

I'm pretty sure I read that correctly, and I stand behind my comments. If I misunderstood something, please feel free to clarify it for me.

Let's see if I understand what you are saying. You think we should keep three officials on the court, but make sure they are all veteran officials with lots of experience, so there is no question about the quality of the officiating. Then we should take all these "third legs" and throw them out of the association, or at least not let them work high school ball. Is that correct? Let me ask you this. What happens in five years, or ten years when all these veteran officials decide to retire, and all we have left are these "third legs" who have no experience on a high school court? Do you think that would make the officiating better, or worse? How about cutting these newer, younger officials a break? They are learning. They are getting experience. They might make some bad calls, or miss some calls, but I guarantee you that at half time, or after the game, the veteran officials they are working with are talking about it. They are teaching them things they could have done on specific plays. They are teaching them game management. The whole ride home from the game, they are talking about missed calls. These young guys don't need you beating them up. They are beating themselves up enough already. They are learning. These guys will be the veteran officials eventually that will be training the new "third legs" that you so often refer too. Officiating is a brutal, unappreciated, underpaying job. If you think any of these guys are out doing it for the money, or the glory, or to flirt with the ladies in the crowd, I would say you are 99% wrong. And trust me, the 1% who are never make it more than a couple of seasons. So, to all the "third legs" who see this thread title and read the original post, don't worry. We have faith in you and your ability. Otherwise, you wouldn't be out there gaining the experience that you will need for the duration of your officiating career. Apparently, you would be working Upward basketball instead.

I don't think its an encouragement to call more charges, just an encouragement to better determine who created the contact. A defensive player in a legal guarding position doesn't have to be standing still to get a charge call against the offense. I would say you are correct that the way the game is officiated is changing. We used to give the offensive player alot of leeway when he had the ball, simply because the school of thought was that a player with the ball had to blatenly create contact (bulldoze) with a defender to generate a foul against the offense. What this resulted in was alot of fouls called against the defender, who quite honestly hadn't done anything wrong. They were just playing good defense. Now, the school of thought is changing to consider that the defense has a right to play defense, legally of course, and that an offensive player who is trying to gain an advantage through contact could be committing a foul in doing so. This goes back to my first point of 'who actually created the contact, and was the contact severe enough to call a foul.' I think this is creating a better balance to the game, which in turn does make the game easier to call. But, making the game easier to call isn't the intention. The intention is to make the game more fair for both teams. The ease of calling the game is a bi-product, if you will. Oh, and I wasn't saying that you haven't seen alot of basketball per se. That comment was for effect, and I hope that you didn't take that, or anything else I said for that matter, the wrong way. I thought it was a great question, and deserved a good answer, or at least an answer as good as I could provide. Cheers.

Regarding your first question, there is definitely more to an offensive foul that a defensive player falling down. If the offensive player extends his forearm to create space, or simply bulldozes his way through a defender, thats offense all the way. The other side of that is if you have never seen a defender who hits the floor called for a blocking foul, then you haven't seen much basketball. There is such a thing as legal guarding position, and if the defense isn't in it, the contact is probably going to result in a foul against the defense. I agree that there is judgement involved on the part of the officials in these charge/block situations, but I am certain that they make the correct call in 95% of the situations. These guys know what they are doing. I don't really see any difference in your first and second question, but there is more to officiating a basketball game than saying "When X happens, blow the whistle and call a foul on the offense, or when Y happens, blow the whistle and call a foul on the defense." Lots of things dictate what constitutes a foul and what doesn't.

I predict that the game will be cancelled due to a lack of interest.

Its the local strip club in Smithville. I think it drives about 50% of the city's economy.

49-10 FC

71-6 AE

Then maybe they should say, "our coaching stinks," instead of blaming a loss on everything from the referees to the way the field smelled (which is one I have never heard, by the way).

WH wins by 31, then takes all their players to the Midnight Express to celebrate.

It's really funny to see a team that hasn't won a game all year try to blame a loss on everything except the fact that their team isn't any good.

I am guessing the final score is a 2-2 tie.

I hope Upperman wins. The only good thing about Dekalb County is the Midnight Express.

Looking for a good night of HS football and they chose an RBS game? Strange...