The Playcaller's Play-by-Play

[Lulu]

First of all, I LOVE the Playcaller's contributions, so please do not misunderstand what I'm about to write here. I hope the Playcaller continues to contribute because it's absolutely great whenever he does and greatly appreciated. What I'm going to point out, however, are a few comments that surprised me because I did not realize officials view the game this way.

I have always thought that officials should call what they see, not make guesses based on which player is more of a star, and how many fouls a star player has accumulated. I guess it's not just that it seems players can get away with more with 4 fouls and never foul out, apparently this true. (A lot of what I read also seemed to confirm a lot of the calls revolving around Hansbrough's play, imo.)

Here's a list of the comments that caught my attention. You might have to read the original article for the full context. I was going to add comments but it's probably clear in each what was surprisingly (to me) considered accepted officiating:

14:13: "...but bigs aren’t going to get that call after bringing the ball down unnecessarily, as officials are loathe to bail out players on bad plays."

11:39: "Officials don’t anticipate particular calls, but they’re always trying to anticipate the next play. But I’ll go ahead and say that a Duke hand-check foul in the next couple of GU possessions wouldn’t shock me."

6:27: "Georgetown is dictating how this game is called-and there’s nothing at all wrong with that." (Yeah, I know this might benefit Duke more than not, but this isn't a list of complaints.)

16:14: "...Henderson, realizing he’s going to go down with the ball otherwise, throws the ball back over his head into the hands of an opponent, making it possible for Jim Burr to pass on the foul. It still should have been a foul..."

11:11: 11:11-Monroe returns. Nobody wants to be the official that calls a fifth foul on anything less than something completely obvious. (We've always thought it, now it's confirmed.)

6:18: This decision of Sean Hull to go with the offensive foul could serve as the basis of a column on why stars seem to get the benefit of so many close calls. But for now, suffice it to say that if McClure had gone up with the jumper immediately rather than hesitating...

I guess what struck me the most is how this echoes a lot of the unfair pigeon-holing concerns that have been voiced here over the years, regarding one player's tendency to walk, or another player's tendency to foul, etc. Seems like it is almost accepted for officials to bring their pre-conceived notions into the game. Despite human nature, I thought this would be greatly discouraged.

[slower]

The Playcaller's analysis was one of the best and most substantive posts in recent memory. Thanks!

[MChambers]

Playcaller really nails a lot of things I thought I saw, especially (1) the ridiculous held ball called against Plumlee and (2) the play early in the second half where Henderson picked up the loose ball that Smith dropped, and then was undercut by the Georgetown player who dove on the floor. I think refs don't call enough fouls on players who dive on the floor and hit other players. I'm glad Playcaller agreed that it should have been a foul. It really was a big non-call, because Georgetown got a big three-point play out of it.

[sagegrouse]

Playcaller really nails a lot of things I thought I saw, especially (1) the ridiculous held ball called against Plumlee and (2) the play early in the second half where Henderson picked up the loose ball that Smith dropped, and then was undercut by the Georgetown player who dove on the floor. I think refs don't call enough fouls on players who dive on the floor and hit other players. I'm glad Playcaller agreed that it should have been a foul. It really was a big non-call, because Georgetown got a big three-point play out of it.

Take the foul, Gerald! Take the foul! You bailed out Georgetown and the refs.

sagegrouse

[tbyers11]

Take the foul, Gerald! Take the foul! You bailed out Georgetown and the refs.

sagegrouse

While I understand the Playcaller's view that the ref would have been more likely to call the foul if Gerald had just fallen to the ground, I thought it was a textbook case where the ref should have blown his whistle anyway because the Georgetown player gained an obvious advantage by knocking G to the ground in the dive for the loose ball.

I also enjoyed the Playcaller discussing that the more aggressive, harder-working team often gets the benefit of close calls from the officiating crew. In most Duke games, the Blue Devils are this team but they weren't in the first 12 minutes or so of yesterday's game. Admitting that referees make some calls based on subjective decisions rings true for me. I know they try not to but it seems impossible due to human nature.

Thanks for the article.

[loran16]

First of all, I LOVE the Playcaller's contributions, so please do not misunderstand what I'm about to write here. I hope the Playcaller continues to contribute because it's absolutely great whenever he does and greatly appreciated. What I'm going to point out, however, are a few comments that surprised me because I did not realize officials view the game this way.

I have always thought that officials should call what they see, not make guesses based on which player is more of a star, and how many fouls a star player has accumulated. I guess it's not just that it seems players can get away with more with 4 fouls and never foul out, apparently this true. (A lot of what I read also seemed to confirm a lot of the calls revolving around Hansbrough's play, imo.)

Here's a list of the comments that caught my attention. You might have to read the original article for the full context. I was going to add comments but it's probably clear in each what was surprisingly (to me) considered accepted officiating:

I guess what struck me the most is how this echoes a lot of the unfair pigeon-holing concerns that have been voiced here over the years, regarding one player's tendency to walk, or another player's tendency to foul, etc. Seems like it is almost accepted for officials to bring their pre-conceived notions into the game. Despite human nature, I thought this would be greatly discouraged.

Truth be told, I don't mind some of this as much as other people....a ref fouling out any player is a game changer and fouling out monroe would basically swing the game one way. The refs don't want to do that and be mistaken. So, they'll have to be REALLY SURE that something's a foul for them to call one on that player, fouling him out.

Of note is that despite having this kind of treatment, players with 4 fouls tend to go softer and weaker on D and O anyhow, as if they're not getting this benefit of the doubt, so it works out well anyhow.

I must admit though, it is very interesting seeing how the refs look at some of the other plays in the playcaller's recap. Please write more posts....they're always interesting and its great to learn.

[weezie]

I particularly enjoyed reading that "the refs are human." Very human, apparently.
Interesting piece. Especially how a ref can gauge the incredulity factor when a player or coach is nailed, thereby casting doubt on the call. Maybe that's why bug-eyed Hanstravel gets so many overlooked travel calls. He can't possibly be traveling if he looks so flabbergasted all the time.

[fogey]

kudos to the play caller for his thoughtful analysis and obvious expertise, but I have to say I agree with the premise of the first post. Officials get paid for what they do and their job is to enforce the rules. Period. No Dr. Phil, no counseling sessions. Just call the game and each play, regardless of who the player is.
Tolerating this kind of "interpretation" by refs cheats the game. Baseball umpires also drive me nuts when they speak of "my" strike zone... and how an ump (or ref) is good as long as he is consistent, and the players can adjust to his unique standards of officiating.
Great players do not earn anything from refs. Just call the play. Thank you.

[devildownunder]

I was going to write a post tearing into officials for all of this interpretation (and yes, the premise of the original post on this thread is spot-on, playcaller's analysis verifies what we've all thought -- and feared -- about officiating for years, namely that there is plenty of interpretation, justification and relativism at work on their calls).

But I decided against writing that post, primarily because the people calling these games are just that -- people. They are going to be affected by emotions, etc., but they also have the capability of applying reason and logic to a situation to do what makes sense and is right, not just what is etched into the rule book. So, as frustrating as it is, I'm willing to live with it and hope that we get the best of them handling our games and all of the big games. Otherwise there is a greater chance of games and championships being decided by mindless automatons.

[zingit]

I think it would be impossible for there NOT to be some interpretation, relativism, etc., involved in calling a game. Even if you know the rules perfectly and are trying to apply them as consistently as possible and "just call the play," a lot of times it's a very fine line between what is a foul and what isn't. Especially if they're not looking at a replay for most of the calls.

[SMO]

kudos to the play caller for his thoughtful analysis and obvious expertise, but I have to say I agree with the premise of the first post. Officials get paid for what they do and their job is to enforce the rules. Period. No Dr. Phil, no counseling sessions. Just call the game and each play, regardless of who the player is.
Tolerating this kind of "interpretation" by refs cheats the game. Baseball umpires also drive me nuts when they speak of "my" strike zone... and how an ump (or ref) is good as long as he is consistent, and the players can adjust to his unique standards of officiating.
Great players do not earn anything from refs. Just call the play. Thank you.

I agree 100%. If there are different rules for different players, different times in the game, and different situations based on how the flow of the game is going, then they aren't really rules. They are a moving target.

[devildownunder]

I think it would be impossible for there NOT to be some interpretation, relativism, etc., involved in calling a game. Even if you know the rules perfectly and are trying to apply them as consistently as possible and "just call the play," a lot of times it's a very fine line between what is a foul and what isn't. Especially if they're not looking at a replay for most of the calls.

Of course there will be interpretation, but I'm going argue that "oh, that guy's a star, i should let him get away with that" shouldn't be part of the process. Especially in college. If I were grading the refs, that would be something I'd look at.

[feldspar]

Officials get paid for what they do and their job is to enforce the rules. Period. No Dr. Phil, no counseling sessions. Just call the game and each play, regardless of who the player is.
Tolerating this kind of "interpretation" by refs cheats the game.

The only thing black and white about calling fouls is the ref’s shirt.
The concept of advantage/disadvantage throws all notions of “that’s the rule, why can’t you just enforce it” out the window. Fouls are judged in the confines of a split-second decision in the official’s head, compounded by the sum of a host of information going on in the official’s mind.

Advantage/disadvantage must be applied when calling a game of basketball, otherwise you’d have 100 fouls per game.

Not all contact is a foul. I can’t emphasize that enough, and it’s one of the concepts players, coaches and fans don’t understand, or at least forget when their team is playing. The officials have to pass on a lot of contact that happens during the course of the game. It’s their job to decide what contact creates an advantage or disadvantage, and what they are going to allow.

Thus, a good helping of "interpretation" is necessary, otherwise basketball would be merely a free-throw shooting contest.

[moonpie23]

i truly believe that refs should be rotated from conference to conference every two years.....


especially karl hess..

[SilkyJ]

First of all, I LOVE the Playcaller's contributions, so please do not misunderstand what I'm about to write here.

First of all, let me agree with you :)

Keep 'em coming Playcaller. It was the first thing I read this morning!


Take the foul, Gerald! Take the foul! You bailed out Georgetown and the refs.

sagegrouse

He DID take the foul, and the refs should have called it. What the playcaller didn't say was that the reason gerald threw the ball away (IMHO) was because of a play that occurred in the PREVIOUS game, which I almost posted about asking the PLAYCALLER why no fall was called (I think I know the answer). Given the play in the georgetown game, and on the off chance our referee-in-residence is reading this, here goes:

Late in the GA Tech game, GT was shooting FTs and they missed the last one (big surprise). Gerald rebounded the ball and as he did so he got way up (another surprise) and was bumped on the way down by the GT player and also a little by McClure, who was being pushed from behind by the GT player. Nothing crazy, but it was enough to throw him off-balance and he ended up falling as he landed, prompting the ref to call a TRAVEL and not a foul (Note: by the book he did travel, but only because he was fouled).

SO, when G got fouled against georgetown, and started to fall, he threw the ball away b/c last time he didn't receive the call.

I was incensed at the play in the GaTech game and wanted to know if I was wrong. The only argument I could understand for the Ref was that his view of Gerald being bumped was obscured by McClure who was in the ref's line of sight as he was looking at Gerald, so he may have thought McClure bumped him, but even then mcclure was being shoved by the GT player...

What should happen, imo, is that the ref in both scenarios would be waiting to be FORCED to call a foul. I.e. if Gerald has a little contact, but absorbs it and doesn't fall down, then there is no need to make a call there. Let 'em play. But since in the GaTech game he fell down and in the Georgetown game he fell AND turned it over, it should have been called a foul in both instances and you will have a VERY tough time convincing me otherwise.