Consistency and Credibility

Фото: referee

Fred Horgan is a member of FIBA Technical Commission. He is a FIBA International Referee Instructor, FIBA Americas Instructor, Technical Commissioner for Canada, and a member of FIBA Americas Technical Commission. He was elected in 1996 to the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame.

It has often been said that the secret to longevity in successfully officiating international competitions rests in one subtle but essential skill: the ability to apply the principle of advantage/disadvantage with consistency and credibility. Three prerequisites underlie such per-ceptiveness:

1. Thorough experience atthe numerous levels of competition that lie below the international plane.
2. A grasp of the rules of play grounded in the "spirit" or "intent" of each rule rather than that rule's superficial restriction(s).
3. The acceptance of the reality that an official will make innumerable decisions in the course of a single game which will not require a whistle because he/she judges that the incident had no appreciable impact on the game itself.

When a less experienced official is advised that perhaps a whistle should not have been blown in a particular situation, his or her common reaction is to say something defensive: "Did you expect me to ignore it", or "The rule says clearly that a player can't do that", or maybe something as transparent as "I had no choice; I had to call it". These and similar responses all point to one flaw: an unwillingness to accept the premise that the game belongs first and foremost to the players, not the officials. It is the players who are responsible for setting the tempo of the game, provided they do so within the framework of fair play embodied in the intent behind every article. The role of the officials, on the other hand, is to observe play with a view to impartially recognizing circumstances where a player or team is placed at a disadvantage because of a breach of an article's intent, and to interrupt the game long enough to re-establish a balanced fairness. With this in mind, the official always has a choice in whether or not a foul or violation should be called, and many times the choice should rightly be that no infraction has occurred and play should continue uninterrupted. So the question becomes what should an official do when the decision is not to blow the whistle. Should there be some kind of signal that accompanies the decision? Should a verbal directive be audibly delivered such as "play on"? The simple answer is "none of the above". Opening an unnecessary dialogue in a contentious moment solves nothing and only makes the situation even more contentious. It is much wiser to trust that the game itself will be the healer and that after one or two move trips up and down the court all will be forgotten. If there is a brief reaction from player or coach, don't respond unless that reaction clearly exceeds the expectations of sportsmanlike conduct. It isn't difficult to find examples of articles where hasty and unnecessary whistles have compromised an otherwise very fine basketball games. Give some thought to the following possibilities. As A2 tries to avoid defensive pressure by dribbling around B4, there is obvious shoulder contact but neither A2’s forward progress nor B4’s ability to defend is compromised by that contact. Should a foul be called on either A2 or B4?

In a lay-up situation, A2 releases the ball and while still airborne contacts B4 who is also airborne. The attempt for a goal is successful and neither the offensive player nor the defender is placed at a subsequent disadvantage as a result of the contact. Should a foul be called?

On the jump ball, A3 steps into the centre circle after the ball has been tossed but before it is legally tapped. Team control is then established by B3. Should a violation be called on A3?

In a post situation, A2 and B4 lean heavily on each other in mutual attempts to dislodge their opponent from that post position. The contact is very physical but does not involve the illegal use of hands, arms or knees by either player. Has a foul(s) occurred?

A2 is dribbling the ball in team A’s backcourt with no defensive player guarding A2 when A2 “palms” the ball. Shall a violation be called on A2?

In each of these situations the official must certainly be in a position to see the whole play leading to the potential infraction, but it is even more important that he or she decide whether or not the action extends a liberty beyond the intent of the article in question. If neither player and/ or team is disadvantaged unfairly, then play on; if, however, a player and/or team gains an unfair advantage (or places the opponents at an unfair disadvantage), then play must interrupted and the wrong must be righted. In any game, obviously, there will be a team that will be disadvan-taged; they are the losers. The disadvantage, however, will be a fair one: one team is taller, or faster, or more skilled than the opponents and that advantage is what earns them the win. The rules of the game provide for that outcome.

Achieving consistency therefore is not a matter of always judging similar action as an infraction. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that a contact at one end of the court could be a foul while similar contact at the other end might amount to a no-call. Assuming unsportsmanlike behaviour doesn't enter the picture, the discriminating factor will be whether or not one player or team was placed at an unfair disadvantage by the action in question.

As for an official's achieving credibility with his or her calls, that is something that must be earned with time and experience. Players appreciate it when that official doesn't cause unnecessary interruptions and even might come to his or her aid when an occasion warrants it. An excellent example came during one of the 2009 qualifying tournaments leading to the World Championships being staged in 2010. An experienced and respected official was stationed in the vicinity of the scorer's table during a throw-in when he thought he heard someone at the table call to him. As he turned to see if anything was wrong he sounded his whistle to maintain the dead ball but didn't realize that as he was turning the ball was being handed to the thrower-in. With his whistle the play was interrupted. When he realized what had happened he stepped towards two opposing players who were nearby and seemed to be giving a warning for something. They nodded and separated, and the throw-in then resumed without any problem. What no one in the gymnasium knew was the nature of what was said in that brief monologue. It went something like this: "Gentlemen, I'm embarrassed because I just blew my whistle unnecessarily and I feel like a fool. Why don't the two of you just react as if I'm giving you some kind of warning and we'll get this game underway again?"

They nodded, he said thank you, everyone was happy and the game resumed.