New Columnist

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

You got your wish.

But not really. Reaming the announcers is not the same as explaining the call. The column was generally entertaining and thoughtful, but it did nothing to address the call itself.

[grossbus]

i would be interested in the play caller's take on the end of the rutgers/tenn game.

[BlueintheFace]

I hope he's Karl Hesse.

Last year my dad had season tickets up in section 2 of Cameron and there was this awesome guy a few rows down from us that would yell "Die Hess" at the top of his lungs every time Karl made a bad call (often). Man I miss that guy.

Karl hasn't done a single Duke home game this year... I wonder why?

[Indoor66]

Last year my dad had season tickets up in section 2 of Cameron and there was this awesome guy a few rows down from us that would yell "Die Hess" at the top of his lungs every time Karl made a bad call (often). Man I miss that guy.

Karl hasn't done a single Duke home game this year... I wonder why?

Did he die?

[ojaidave]

But not really. Reaming the announcers is not the same as explaining the call. The column was generally entertaining and thoughtful, but it did nothing to address the call itself.

Didn't Playcaller essentially say the ref had to call something if in fact the player had gone out of bounds? Short of letting players wander outside the lines, the player was either forced out of bounds (foul - free throws) or was simply out of bounds (turnover).

Great read, thanks Playcaller.

[TillyGalore]

Didn't Playcaller essentially say the ref had to call something if in fact the player had gone out of bounds? Short of letting players wander outside the lines, the player was either forced out of bounds (foul - free throws) or was simply out of bounds (turnover).

Great read, thanks Playcaller.

Oh good, I'm not the only who noticed Playcaller's interpretation of the officials' call.

I think he reamed out the broadcasters as they were a little irresponsible with their call. He just wrote what we all think when it's Duke the broadcasters are jumping all over.

I really like Playcaller and look forward to more columns from him.

[Devil07]

I was glad to see today's column, but I would be interested to hear a more in-depth take on what goes through a ref's mind on a questionable call like that. It seemed unclear as to whether or not he went out. How does a ref in that situation decide whether or not to make that questionable call? Does the circumstance weigh heavily or is there no real thought at all, just gut instincts? I'd also like to hear what Play Caller has to say about that. While I certainly agree with his take on the announcing, I'm interested to get more of a perspective on the mind of a ref.

That said, if you're reading this Play Caller, thanks for the great column. I certainly did enjoy it, but figured I'd add on what else I'd like to know. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to reading more of it!

[allenmurray]

But not really. The column was generally entertaining and thoughtful, but it did nothing to address the call itself.

I thought he answered it pretty clearly. If the official saw the player go-out-of bounds he had to call something. Either the player was out-of-bounds and the other team gets the ball or the player went out-of-bounds as a result of a foul and the foul gets called. You can't just pretend that a player didn't go out-of-bounds. Making a correct call is not an official deciding a game. Pretending you didnt see a player go out of bounds when in fact you did is an official deciding the outcome of a game.

officials have some discretion to pass on certain calls in certain situations, such as the marginal travel in the junior varsity contest, the slight bump on the LeBron dunk, the common rather than intentional foul in the calm blow-out. Lines, on the other hand, are lines. Even a toenail on the three-point arc, if seen, means a two-point try, no exceptions. And the same thing goes for the sidelines, baselines, the free-throw lines, and the division line (the only possible exceptions are lane lines on free throws, but that’s a discussion for another time). Out-of-bounds is out-of-bounds.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Devil07 hit it on the head. The 1-2 sentence brush-off of an incredibly controversial call didn't really bowl me over, and devoting the other 8-10 paragraphs to essentially blaming the announcers for the controversy really didn't sit well with me. I was excited to get a first-hand look into the mind and interpretations of an official in difficult situations, and we didn't get much of that, imo.

[DukeDevilDeb]

Didn't Playcaller essentially say the ref had to call something if in fact the player had gone out of bounds? Short of letting players wander outside the lines, the player was either forced out of bounds (foul - free throws) or was simply out of bounds (turnover).

Great read, thanks Playcaller.

Ditto that. I really enjoyed getting a different perspective. Doesn't mean we have to totally agree with what he said. But I, for one, am really grateful for this beginning to what will be a great addition to DBR!

[wilko]

I dont envy your task here. I could never be a referee AND a Duke fan. The temptation would be to great for me to disqualify the other team. Just couldnt do it. There will be some folks here who will argue just for sport and are quite adept at it. So However right you may be.. it wont be enuff for everyone... but then I guess you are used to that... so nevermind.

Seriously, tho... I've often thought that it would be good to have a former ref as part a broadcast team for insight. A fair # of color guys and analysts could use a little help with rules interpretation from time to time.

I think there is a sizable disconnect between the fans interpretation of the rules and the way the ref calls it.

Example: If you have a guy bringing the ball upcourt unguarded and he palms or carries, I doubt a call is very likely in this case.. even tho its a "violation" of the rules. but if he were to do it in the process of making a drive to the basket, then we are much more likely to see a whistle, I think. So if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it needs to be a violation when the player palms in the uncontested open court.

Sports fanatics **need** to have something in black and white. Absolutes they can count on to increase their self worth of personal game knowledge, belief in their teams righteousness, vicarious living and a validation of yrs spent spectating a bouncing ball. (self included...no cheap shots).

Twisty rules get in the way of basking in the glory of my team.

So I welcome your input here and will look at it as a fan outreach/education program. The game can do more in this regard, so there will be less carping about silly stuff and they will save it for the really big stuff were its warranted.

[RPS]

This is a GREAT idea. I hope our Playcaller brings his expertise (and I'm using that phrase loosely ) to this table as often as possible.
I also hope he's got a sense of humor.

Of course, if s/he is both a referee and a Duke fan who also calls Duke games, it's no wonder we get all the calls!

[Clipsfan]

I'd try to explain, but I'd hate to be perceived as lecturing anyone.

Please don't respond. It wasn't a serious question.

[JasonEvans]

Concur with everyone in welcoming this new contributor and thinking his insight will be educational and valuable...

But, I must dissent with his most recent column. I would much rather read more about the merrit of what appeared to be a horrible call than hear him bash the announcers for agreeing it was a horrible call.

His "if he was out of bounds there must be a foul called" explanation was poor, in my opinion. It is not like there was an obvious out of bounds call to be made there. Heck, even replays could not find it. What's more, the "bump" was so slight as to be a no call under almost all circumstances anyway, let alone a deciding end-of-game moment like that.

What I would have rather read about would be a column about the reality of end-of-game situations and how refs change their whistle blowing in those situations. The "swallow the whistle on game-deciding plays" phenomenon is one we have all observed on dozens of occassions. Does the Playcaller feel it is real? Is it something awknowledged behind closed doors in referee circles? If so, how does the Playcaller feel about the ref who did not follow that unspoken rule in this game? That is the kind of column I would rather read and would find enlightening. A column where the ref bashes the officials for criticizing the refs -- well, that was a bit obvious and predictible if you ask me.

--Jason "I hope the Playcaller gives us a more critical eye at officiating in the future" Evans

[RPS]

But, I must dissent with his most recent column. I would much rather read more about the merrit of what appeared to be a horrible call than hear him bash the announcers for agreeing it was a horrible call.

I disagree. The problem is that the evaluation of whether the call was poor or not is based upon a prior conclusion as to whether or not the GU player was OOB. If not OOB, pretty much everyone would agree that it was a lousy call. But if OOB, a call of some sort must be made -- foul or turnover. PC's discussion was framed in the context of the announcers jumping to the second level without passing through the first. I think PC was spot-on.

What I would have rather read about would be a column about the reality of end-of-game situations and how refs change their whistle blowing in those situations.

I'd like to read that column too. But it's an entirely different column.

A column where the ref bashes the officials for criticizing the refs -- well, that was a bit obvious and predictible if you ask me.

Except that PC implied that s/he agreed with the criticism of the refs if the Hoya player was not OOB. The criticism of the announcers wasn't predicated upon their excoriating the officials per se, but rather upon their misunderstanding of the nature and context of the call.

[SilkyJ]

What if the Play Caller is Feldspar? Wouldn't that blow your mind

i don't know what would blow my mind more: that, or the fact that feldspar could blow my mind.

headache

His "if he was out of bounds there must be a foul called" explanation was poor, in my opinion. It is not like there was an obvious out of bounds call to be made there. Heck, even replays could not find it. What's more, the "bump" was so slight as to be a no call under almost all circumstances anyway, let alone a deciding end-of-game moment like that.

Fair enough, but its a good point nonetheless that IF the ref saw him OOB (and we just don't know what the ref saw) then he HAS to make that call. And its very fair of Play Caller to make the point that mcdunough rushed to judgment before seeing a replay.

p.s. where you been?

[BlueintheFace]

I don't think he died. I just don't hear him anymore. He was an institution on that side of the stadium.

[Lulu]

I just wanted to write and say that I really enjoy the Playcaller's column. There are many questions I've always wanted to ask about how the game is called from an official's perspective, and I look forward to every article the PC submits.

[feldspar]

Devil07 hit it on the head. The 1-2 sentence brush-off of an incredibly controversial call didn't really bowl me over, and devoting the other 8-10 paragraphs to essentially blaming the announcers for the controversy really didn't sit well with me. I was excited to get a first-hand look into the mind and interpretations of an official in difficult situations, and we didn't get much of that, imo.

I think the thing you failed to grasp from the column is that the call in question was a really really REALLY easy one to make. There's nothing mind-blowing about the interpretation. He was bumped out of bounds, so you have either OOB, or you have a foul. Easy as pie as to what call any lame-brain is going to make in that situation, and the ref made the right decision.

The (ignorant) commentators were the ones that made such a big deal out of it. That's why the focus of the column was where it was.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I respectfully disagree, primarily for the reasons I and others (esp. Jason) stated above.
1) I still haven't seen any clear evidence that he was OBVIOUSLY OOB.
2) If only a toenail touched the line I'd actually prefer a no call, as we've all seen done numerous times over the years. That may not be what the rulebook says, but it's clearly been the practice for a long time, as evidenced by the overwhelming negative response from everyone that isn't closing ranks in defense of fellow officials.
3) Even if it was the correct call, it is clearly a controversial one. A lengthy discussion of why s/he thinks it was the correct one citing examples from other games, the applicable rules, etc may have been persuasive and almost certainly would have been interesting and informative. Instead we got a 1 sentence "defense" of the call and 8-10 paragraphs of deflecting blame to the announcers. A column that could have been entertaining and informative instead came off, to me, as petty and defensive. If others did enjoy it, more power to them.