View Full Version : Regarding reffing, what do you prefer?

02-24-2008, 12:54 PM
A closely called game with a lot of fouls called, or a game with very few trips to the line?

Personally I prefer a closely called game. I think the game was designed to give the person with the basketball a decent chance of putting the ball in the basket. In games where players are allowed to mug one another I feel it really isn't basketball at all. It's more like kick fighting, or Judo or something like that. Fouls , should be called when someone fouls you. Yes. Foul shooting does slow down the game and that really irritates Producers. Who is really in control of these games?

02-24-2008, 01:04 PM
I like games where they let the players play. Yes, some fouls need to be called, but I do like them to allow some hand-checking and some bumping down low.

02-24-2008, 01:07 PM
I prefer a consistently called game throughout the whole game.
Also, I don't like that whole argument about how fouls all the sudden change at the end of a game from the beginning of a game.

Lets say they could of let a foul go earlier in the game and that would of been a 2 point swing. Whether the 2 point swing is in the beginning or end of the game doesn't matter, its still 2 points. And I hate commentators who keep preaching how "you can't call that at the end of a game." Same with any sport, referees need to keep it consistent no matter what stage of the game it is.

I just want the game to be called the same throughout, whether they let things go or don't, just be consistent.

02-24-2008, 01:42 PM
I prefer consistency above all, and I think that leads to few trips to the line because players know what to expect and act accordingly.

I don't like a lot of ticky tack stuff being called, but if it does deter a player from doing what he is trying to do, fould should be called. I especially become enraged when a player is fouled into an infraction (pushed so he travels or goes out of bounds, for example) and the foul isn't called. I'm fine if the same kind of contact occurs, doesn't cause an infraction, and there is no call. But if it results in a whistle for something else, you have to call it. I also think that if a ref has a choice between calling a violation versus a foul on a player, they should go with the violation and keep players in the game and teams out of the bonus. Example--a guy travels into a charge, make sure you call the travel. Or if there is a moderate push when two players are going for a loose ball that ends up going out of bounds--give the ball to the team that got pushed, don't call the foul.

Totally agree with Asoc about end of game situations. Way too often "letting the players decide" means letting the players foul. If a basket with .1 seconds left counts the same as one with 10 minutes left, then so should the rest of what's going on.

02-24-2008, 02:21 PM
I like games where they let the players play. Yes, some fouls need to be called, but I do like them to allow some hand-checking and some bumping down low.

Agreed. I hate it when refs call call too many fouls when players are fighting for position on the low-block and rebounding. Shooting fouls cannot be ignored, but it makes for a better game overall when the refs allow for mroe physical contact in other areas. And the last thing anyone wants to see is a game decided because certain players get into foul trouble.

02-24-2008, 03:16 PM
Let them play. Regardless of the "intentions of the rules of the game," constant whistles disrupt any sort of fluidity to the game (which is where I think the game is at its most graceful and most fun) and makes players tentative.

02-24-2008, 05:00 PM
I think that the game of college basketball has gotten way too ugly and physical. It ain't football, folks. I think the refs need to be consistent throughout the game in calling hand checks and shoves that actually affect the ball handler and ball movement, i.e. the call is almost never made away from the ball. In my opinion, the "let them play" idea should be mainly for guys trying to get post position or rebound position ... you could call a foul in almost every one of those cases where guys are just going for position, so it makes no sense to call those fouls. That seems to be the #1 area where a visiting team gets hosed these days. They get called for fouls away from the ball more often than the home team and it's an easy way for the refs to please the crowd.

I agree with the others who have said that consistency is the most important element, from horn to horn.

02-24-2008, 05:04 PM
For the most part, if calls are consistent, then there will not be a ton of fouls called. Players usually adjust and stop fouling if certain things are called. That's not always the case, but quite often.

I agree on hand checking, especially on the ball. You'll hear guys complain about handchecking being called too much out front when the ballhandler isn't even going anywhere, but that's the whole point: who's to say he wouldn't be going somewhere without the handcheck.

02-24-2008, 07:04 PM

02-24-2008, 07:37 PM
Things a ref should look at:
1) did the contact result in a distinct advantage for one team?
2) did the contact affect the outcome of the play?
3) has that level of contact been allowed throughout the game?
4) is that level of contact being allowed for both teams?

One of the things I had a problem with in the first St. Mary's game was that so many fouls were called against Gonzaga that did not meet ANY of the above criteria!!!

In the Tennessee game earlier in the year I believe that Tennessee got away with many "fouls" and the Gonzaga players were caught off guard by the rough/agressive play. The refs held true to items 3 & 4 above but GU figured it out too late, finally playing more agressively as they made a late push.

More than likely if GU makes the NCAA tourney they better be ready for the rough/agressive style of play allowed byt the refs in the Tennessee game!

02-24-2008, 08:05 PM
Very true about the St. Mary's and Tennessee games.

The only thing I would possibly question about your criterion is how some refs interpret #1. A bump here and a bump there can go a long way in keeping a penetrator out of the paint without looking like it's gaining the defense much of an advantage. Same could be said for what offensive players do with their off arm. I personally would like to see that stuff called a little bit more often. Like I said earlier, as soon as they start calling it, it stops happening.

02-24-2008, 09:10 PM
I like the reffing for the zags to be the same way it will be in the NCAA tournament - mostly let em play. Tennessee, Memphis, UCLA, and others have slapped, hacked, knocked, smacked their way to victories over us because we weren't playing that way back.

Let's get on the same page if possible. With WCC calling tighter standards it is hard for us to adjust. I'll never forget that UCLA game in the sweet sixteen, and the reactions of the whole world except us. "UCLA just came on with great defense." Even the announcers thought that. MY god. In the WCC Batista and Ammo would have been to the foul line 2 or three times in the last 3 minutes, but nary a foul was called.

02-24-2008, 10:30 PM
i prefer it to be this way: if it is a legitimate foul, call it. thats it. period. refs arent there to be seen, or change the game. let em play, and if a foul is commited call it. both ways evenly might i add. too many calls is going to make the game slow and dull. too little of calls and hoops turns into rugby.