Response to Playcaller Thread

[Lulu]

I delight in reading The Playcaller's analyses. However, for the sake of discussion, I did have a differing opinion regarding the focus on Henderson's alleged travel vs. the travel by Johnson.

It is suggested that Duke fans were motivated to cherry pick the Henderson play and ignore most others (e.g. Johnson's travel), giving irrational attention to the call on Henderson.

I think the simply reason for the focus on that particular play is because Henderson appeared to make a great play grabbing that rebound. He was then put in the impossible position of landing on an opposing player, having nowhere to put his feet and thus falling. It seems outright unfair.

Johnson's travel is simply less offensive because, despite the technicality of the call, it did seem he was left wide open to score. There was nothing particularly egregious or offensive or unfair about it. There are probably a dozen similar travels in any game that go uncalled; I hate to say it's expected but it almost is. To me, it's like when players travel before going up for a wide open dunk, or when a point guard palms the ball at halfcourt while the other team is already set in their zone.

You might say Johnson deserved to score, and Henderson deserved to come down with that rebound. I FULLY realize you will not find the word "deserved" in the rulebook so I hope no one goes off on that aspect.

I just don't think it was tinted glasses causing all of the concern here; I think it was a dramatic, potentially game-deciding play, that seemed very unjust in its result. I'd even bet there were a bunch of Wake fans holding their breath waiting for the call. We all know that there are many missed calls during any game, and I firmly believe that if you don't go out there and win by 10+ you're sort of putting the game in the officials' hands. This was just the sort of dramatic no-call at the end of a game that has been discussed here many times, regarding other games past.

Now that that's been said. I STILL feel like I do not have confirmation of the exact rulebook or handbook stance on the issue? What is it? Is it unclear whether contact with Teague caused the fall, or was it a clear foul but just the sort of play officials will let go in that situation? Or was it not a foul? I can understand not wanting to put a player on the line late in the game (even if I disagree), but is it really as simple as thinking "Gee, if we put Duke on the line they're surely going to win, but if we don't then there's a much smaller chance Wake is going to score here, meaning we're off the hook."

[roywhite]

Good post, Lulu. The only explanation for the Henderson travel call seems to be that it is normally called that way. :(

[blueprofessor]

I have seen only 3 replays of the play and wonder if anyone has studied it to discern Wake's foul(s).
Hopefully, Playcaller will cite the rule, explain why Teague had not committed a blocking foul, and discuss why a push (if there were one) was not a pushing foul.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:):D:)

[feldspar]

I have seen only 3 replays of the play and wonder if anyone has studied it to discern Wake's foul(s).
Hopefully, Playcaller will cite the rule, explain why Teague had not committed a blocking foul, and discuss why a push (if there were one) was not a pushing foul.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:):D:)

Perhaps, instead of Playcaller doing all the work, you can delve into the rules book and show us why that should have been called a block?

[JG Nothing]

I have seen only 3 replays of the play and wonder if anyone has studied it to discern Wake's foul(s).
Hopefully, Playcaller will cite the rule, explain why Teague had not committed a blocking foul, and discuss why a push (if there were one) was not a pushing foul.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:):D:)

The only possible foul I can see is if Teague was in an illegal guarding position because he was laying on the floor. Here is what I saw from a replay. Just before going up for the rebound, Henderson was standing flat-footed next to Teague, who was laying motionless on his back. If Henderson had gone up vertically for the rebound, he would have landed on the floor. Henderson had room to land. He, however, came down with his right foot landing on the far side of Teague's stomach, which caused him to slip. The way Henderson landed seems to indicate horizontal movement when he jumped. Henderson jumped forward onto Teague; Teague did not roll under Henderson. There was no push.

[SMO]

Perhaps, instead of Playcaller doing all the work, you can delve into the rules book and show us why that should have been called a block?

Or, we could continue to rely on a self-proclaimed expert (The Playcaller) who volunteers to enlighten us. He does entertain questions and respond voluntarily, right?

[Virginian]

I'm sorry but the Playcaller's piece left me cold. I appreciate him taking the time to pull it together, but we didn't learn much.

Regarding the Henderson call, Playcaller says you could make a case that the call was technically incorrect but it will be called that way (incorrectly?) almost all the time. Why, he doesn't say. I wish he had cited the specific rule and then discussed why it isn't called according to the rule.

As for Hansblunder's non-calls, he goes into great detail talking about how "stuff happens" in the middle, where play is quick and intense, but he didn't really address the egregious non-calls that get everyone so worked up. He spent about 8 or 10 paragraphs telling us it's hard to make those calls. Well, okay, but does he travel or not? And surely SOME of those many non-calls are obvious enough to one of the three refs on the floor, particularly because so many of those instances happen when Hanstumble is 10 or more feet from the basket and takes four or five steps going to the hoop through open space around the lane.

So, again, I appreciate Playcaller's effort, but I'm not sure how helpful it was.

[feldspar]

Or, we could continue to rely on a self-proclaimed expert (The Playcaller) who volunteers to enlighten us. He does entertain questions and respond voluntarily, right?

The Playcaller is trying to enlighten fans here about the "big picture." It seems from the responses in this thread that LuLu and others had no interest in understanding that "big picture," but instead want to keep harping on Henderson's travel play, which only proves the Playcaller's main point.

The Playcaller's job, as some has requested, is not to pore through the rulebook to try and justify everyone's interpretation of what they think did or didn't happen.

I simply don't understand why it is so hard for people on this board (some do, but most don't) to go into the rulebook and find justification for their opinions on a certain play. Instead, they want someone else to do all the work for them.

Teach a man to fish....

[roywhite]

The only possible foul I can see is if Teague was in an illegal guarding position because he was laying on the floor. Here is what I saw from a replay. Just before going up for the rebound, Henderson was standing flat-footed next to Teague, who was laying motionless on his back. If Henderson had gone up vertically for the rebound, he would have landed on the floor. Henderson had room to land. He, however, came down with his right foot landing on the far side of Teague's stomach, which caused him to slip. The way Henderson landed seems to indicate horizontal movement when he jumped. Henderson jumped forward onto Teague; Teague did not roll under Henderson. There was no push.

Clearly, Henderson should have borrowed the Blue Devil's surfboard, laid it on top of Teague and any other prone Deacon, grabbed the rebound and then surfed to an open spot in the floor.

Whatever hope we had of a more rational explanation appears gone. Time to move on.

[blueprofessor]

The only possible foul I can see is if Teague was in an illegal guarding position because he was laying on the floor. Here is what I saw from a replay. Just before going up for the rebound, Henderson was standing flat-footed next to Teague, who was laying motionless on his back. If Henderson had gone up vertically for the rebound, he would have landed on the floor. Henderson had room to land. He, however, came down with his right foot landing on the far side of Teague's stomach, which caused him to slip. The way Henderson landed seems to indicate horizontal movement when he jumped. Henderson jumped forward onto Teague; Teague did not roll under Henderson. There was no push.

I had heard a commentator assert that a play with a defender on the floor in somewhat similar circumstances was a blocking foul.Play Caller has a video of the play and his opinion would be valuable.
Best regards---Blueprofessor:)

[feldspar]

Clearly, Henderson should have borrowed the Blue Devil's surfboard, laid it on top of Teague and any other prone Deacon, grabbed the rebound and then surfed to an open spot in the floor.

Whatever hope we had of a more rational explanation appears gone. Time to move on.

The impetus is upon you to provide a rational explanation for why you think it was a foul and not a travel.

[feldspar]

I had heard a commentator assert that a play with a defender on the floor in somewhat similar circumstances was a blocking foul.Play Caller has a video of the play and his opinion would be valuable.
Best regards---Blueprofessor:)

Tip 1: Never, ever, EVER rely on the TV commentators for an accurate explanation of the rules of basketball.

[blueprofessor]

Tip 1: Never, ever, EVER rely on the TV commentators for an accurate explanation of the rules of basketball.

but I do better appreciate what an experienced ref has to say .:D

Best regards--Blueprofessor:):D

[CDu]

The impetus is upon you to provide a rational explanation for why you think it was a foul and not a travel.

Those arguments have been made ad nauseum in other threads, and appear to be acknowledged in the following statement by the playcaller: "Though a reasonable, but not definitive case could be made that the call was technically incorrect, we’re howling at the moon in getting mad at the officials who called that play."

[Reddevil]

1. Thank goodness G did not get injured - next play.
2. Hansbro travels:rolleyes:

[feldspar]

some commentators are worth listening to

I haven't found one, as far as officiating goes.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic or over-the-top here. I honestly haven't found a commentator who I feel can really speak intelligently about the rules or officiating in general.

Even Jay Bilas is wrong more often than not.

The only good commentators are the ones who don't waste their time talking about the officiating, because when they do they just make fools out of themselves.

[allenmurray]

Or, we could continue to rely on a self-proclaimed expert (The Playcaller) who volunteers to enlighten us. He does entertain questions and respond voluntarily, right?

The self-proclaimed expert sarcastic description is not fair. As a voluntary service, because he enjoys this board and Duke Basketball, a Division I referee writes a column for DBR. His expertise is in his training and employment - it is not self-proclaimed.

[shotrocksplitter]

Those arguments have been made ad nauseum in other threads, and appear to be acknowledged in the following statement by the playcaller: "Though a reasonable, but not definitive case could be made that the call was technically incorrect, we’re howling at the moon in getting mad at the officials who called that play."

QFT

Wake was a loss, regardless of circumstance. Let's get 'em @ Cameron, and UNC x2!

[Kfanarmy]

At first, I thought the right call on that play was a no call, let G attempt to pass and either complete it, call travelling if he rolled, or it was tied up/stollen. After Taking Feldspar's advice, I believe the right call was clearly a blocking foul on Teague.

RULE 10
Fouls and Penalties
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by
bending his or her own body into other than a normal position; nor use any
unreasonably rough tactics.

while it wasn't purposeful, it was clear that teague had bent his body into an other than normal position, which ultimately led to the contact and G's fall. Clearly the fall taken by itself is specifically travelling, but the foul, caused by being in an illegal guarding position, came first.

[jv001]

At first, I thought the right call on that play was a no call, let G attempt to pass and either complete it, call travelling if he rolled, or it was tied up/stollen. After Taking Feldspar's advice, I believe the right call was clearly a blocking foul on Teague.

RULE 10
Fouls and Penalties
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by
bending his or her own body into other than a normal position; nor use any
unreasonably rough tactics.

while it wasn't purposeful, it was clear that teague had bent his body into an other than normal position, which ultimately led to the contact and G's fall. Clearly the fall taken by itself is specifically travelling, but the foul, caused by being in an illegal guarding position, came first.

Normal postion for Teague would have him bringing a pillow and blanket. In other words it was not a normal position. If it were we could sacrifice Zoubs to lay down and let hanstravel trip. Oh but he travels anyway. Go Duke!

[allenmurray]

At first, I thought the right call on that play was a no call, let G attempt to pass and either complete it, call travelling if he rolled, or it was tied up/stollen. After Taking Feldspar's advice, I believe the right call was clearly a blocking foul on Teague.

RULE 10
Fouls and Penalties
Section 1. Personal Fouls
Art. 1. A player shall not hold, push, charge, trip or impede the progress
of an opponent by extending arm(s), shoulder(s), hip(s) or knee(s) or by
bending his or her own body into other than a normal position; nor use any
unreasonably rough tactics.

while it wasn't purposeful, it was clear that teague had bent his body into an other than normal position, which ultimately led to the contact and G's fall. Clearly the fall taken by itself is specifically travelling, but the foul, caused by being in an illegal guarding position, came first.


Maybe we should hire a linguist and an attorney to work at every game. The phrase, or by bending his or her own body into other than a normal position implies that the bending was purposeful (otherwise it would have used and/or included the passive voice and also said, "or having had bent on one's behalf). If someone is knocked or falls to the floor it is a little difficult to say they bent thier own body into other than a normal position - in fact you could argue that lying on the floor is a normal position after you have fallen or been knocked down.

By rule he traveled. We lost. Next play.

[dyedwab]

.

By rule he traveled. We lost. Next play.

When I first saw the play, I thought, "damn, gonna call that a travel...tough rule." And wondered if the rule could be change."

I appreciate the Playcaller's post because they bring a transparency to offiiciating that is sorely lacking - in all sports. He tells us about the the difficulties officiating games, what priorities refs have to balance, and why things are called the way they are. He answered more completely than anyone has why Hansbrough seems to get away with so much on the floor.

I for one appreciate his analysis which is more complex, realistic, and satisfying than "The refs are in tank," or "the refs still get almost all of them right."

Kudos for another thought provoking and thoughtful post.

[DukieInKansas]

Thank you, Playcaller for a interesting column. I am not an expert on rules and have no intention on becoming one, but it is interesting to get some insight from a ref's point of view.

From all his articles, I have come to better understand how difficult a ref's job is. Even if they call a perfect game, not missing a single call and not making a single wrong call, they will never be considered perfect by the average viewer. We always watch a game from our team's perspective and judge the calls from those glasses.

What I really enjoyed about this particular column is how it highlighted that we have been dwelling on a particular play that is almost always called the way it was called that day and missed the more obvious travel call on Johnson. We looked at that play from a defensive perspective - how did the defense break down and allow him to get a shot off? Neither of those two plays determined the outcome of the game. It was really determined earlier when we fell behind by so many point.

The Wake game is over and Carolina is ahead. We should be concentrating all our energy on supporting the team in the next game, not the last game.


9F 9F 9F 9F 9F 9F 9F 9F 9F

[sagegrouse]

Or, we could continue to rely on a self-proclaimed expert (The Playcaller) who volunteers to enlighten us. He does entertain questions and respond voluntarily, right?

I believe, given the platform he occupies, he is the DBR's expert on basketball officiating. Works for me -- he's a Division I ref. I've learned a lot.

Seems to me he is giving a clinic on the "practice" as opposed to the "theory" of officiating. A bonus is that it reveals how people who rate officials do their job (e.g.: "will never referee on TV again").

sagegrouse

[SMO]

I believe, given the platform he occupies, he is the DBR's expert on basketball officiating. Works for me -- he's a Division I ref. I've learned a lot.

Seems to me he is giving a clinic on the "practice" as opposed to the "theory" of officiating. A bonus is that it reveals how people who rate officials do their job (e.g.: "will never referee on TV again").

sagegrouse

I have no idea what the dude's qualifications are as he remains anonymous. If he is qualified to speak as an expert that's great. The only criticism I have is that his commentary tends to support officials unequivocally, but I suppose we should expect as much if he is a real ref. I also think viewing his musings as "from the perspective of an official" makes more sense rather than seeing him as an arbiter of whether a certain call was correct or not.

[bjornolf]

I really enjoyed reading that too.

However, I've seen TH make some very obvious and clear violations recently that weren't called. For example, in the game before last, he received the ball outside the 3-pt. line with no one around him at the point about halfway between the corner and the top of the key. As the defense adjusted, he avoided it by dribbling across the court into the lane, ending in a jumpstop. There were STILL no defenders within three feet of him as the defense adjusted. As a defender moved toward him to guard him, he started pivoting all over the place, then moved his pivot foot. My understanding of someone else's posting of the rules is that if you jumpstop, you don't get a pivot foot. If that is true, then TH traveled the second he began to pivot, regardless of his movement of his pivot foot later. At that time, there was still no defender within three feet of him, and the ref at the bottom of my screen as I watched had a completely unimpeded view of him. How is that not an automatic whistle? How do you miss a jumpstop followed by a pivot by a huge white guy in the middle of the lane with no defender near him? I totally understand when they miss it when he's surrounded by defenders getting hacked left and right, but how do they miss it when he's standing in the middle of the floor with no one around him?

Also, on Gerald's rebound -> fall -> travel, it appeared to me that one of the Wake defenders grabbed his elbow and "helped" him down. Did anyone else see this? Wouldn't THAT be a foul? As was said before, this is irrelevant at this point, but nobody else discussed this, so I thought maybe I'd imagined it. I've erased it from my TiVo at this point, so I can't review it again.

[sagegrouse]

I have no idea what the dude's qualifications are as he remains anonymous. If he is qualified to speak as an expert that's great. The only criticism I have is that his commentary tends to support officials unequivocally, but I suppose we should expect as much if he is a real ref. I also think viewing his musings as "from the perspective of an official" makes more sense rather than seeing him as an arbiter of whether a certain call was correct or not.

I know you don't want to come across as a curmudgeon or someone who is never satisfied with anything, but I am having some problems with your comments. A college basketball ref with an apparent love for Duke is giving candid comments not only on the rules but on the calls of specific officials -- his colleagues. Is this not reason enough to pen an anonymous column? Do you think that other refs and conference officials would disapprove, and, therefore, his assignments would suffer? When DBR says the guy is qualified to comment and when his writing is analytical and even lucid, I am willing to take it at face value. Apparently you are not.

It is frustrating, I agree, not to know the source. When Joe Klein wrote Primary Colors as an anaonymous novel, some of his friends were mad at him because he lied to their face in denying he wrote the book. As he said later (paraphrase), "if you plan to write an anonymous book, you have to be prepared to tell some lies."

WRT his comments being mostly supportive of the officials, I believe you are right. I suspect, due to professional pride, he goes out of his way to avoid commenting on games when the officiating is just plain bad. And Duke, because all games are televised and most televised nationally, gets experienced, proven officials. Nervous rookies unlikely to get assignments with a HOF, Olympic champion coach, a top team, and a boisterous crowd in a cathedral to college basketball.

sagegrouse

[kcduke75]

I have no idea what the dude's qualifications are as he remains anonymous. If he is qualified to speak as an expert that's great. The only criticism I have is that his commentary tends to support officials unequivocally, but I suppose we should expect as much if he is a real ref. I also think viewing his musings as "from the perspective of an official" makes more sense rather than seeing him as an arbiter of whether a certain call was correct or not.


Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis

[SMO]

I know you don't want to come across as a curmudgeon or someone who is never satisfied with anything, but I am having some problems with your comments. A college basketball ref with an apparent love for Duke is giving candid comments not only on the rules but on the calls of specific officials -- his colleagues. Is this not reason enough to pen an anonymous column? Do you think that other refs and conference officials would disapprove, and, therefore, his assignments would suffer? When DBR says the guy is qualified to comment and when his writing is analytical and even lucid, I am willing to take it at face value. Apparently you are not.

It is frustrating, I agree, not to know the source. When Joe Klein wrote Primary Colors as an anaonymous novel, some of his friends were mad at him because he lied to their face in denying he wrote the book. As he said later (paraphrase), "if you plan to write an anonymous book, you have to be prepared to tell some lies."

WRT his comments being mostly supportive of the officials, I believe you are right. I suspect, due to professional pride, he goes out of his way to avoid commenting on games when the officiating is just plain bad. And Duke, because all games are televised and most televised nationally, gets experienced, proven officials. Nervous rookies unlikely to get assignments with a HOF, Olympic champion coach, a top team, and a boisterous crowd in a cathedral to college basketball.

sagegrouse

Let me try to address your questions/points:

I don't have a problem with his anonymity, but accordingly I think we need to take his comments with a grain of salt. If he's a real ref it's appropriate to write anonymously if only for self-preservation. I take that he is a real ref at face value, but what is the face value of a faceless writer?

In addition to his supporting officials to excess (in my opinion), the other thing about his pieces that really disturbs me is the implication that players or teams that play better or more fundamentally sound are rewarded by the officials. To be clear, he's saying that interpretation of the rules favors better teams and players. I'm glad he provided this insight, but find it troubling because it sounds like the rules are selectively applied and that this is well understood and accepted among officials.

[SMO]

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis

OK Mr. Push-ups, let's hear your story.

[Lulu]

Does anyone else here wish that perhaps the rule was changed so that a player falling to the ground would no longer be considered a travel? It's not like any players fall to the ground to gain an advantageous position. And of course, if they tried to stand back up it would indeed be a travel. I'm not sold on this idea yet, but it crossed my mind.

Some here have suggested we read the rulebook instead of directing inquiries at The Playcaller. However, I think that has been done (I know I did at the time), but questions still remain regarding interpretation of the rules which is why the Playcaller is so valuable. My original response to the article was based on the fact that even after reading the column I still didn't know the technicalities behind why the call was correct or incorrect, or whether the officials did or did not make a mistake, or if it was just perhaps a "mistake" of the "accepted" variety.

Let's see if we can make a little flowchart regarding the call scenario. I was probably hoping a definitive option from the below would have given in the explanation:

Edit: Sorry, but the formatting did not work below. I hope it's still clear.

A. There was no foul. So the travel was called.
B. There was indeed a foul, but the officials did not call it.
1. The foul was not called because the officials did not have view.
2. The officials presumably saw it, but did not call it because:
a. It is widely accepted to not make such calls in the waning seconds.
b. Based on judgement of the whole play leading up to incident.
c. The officials probably considered the actual fact that it would put
Duke on the line for the win vs. Wake having to make a play to win.
d. ?

(C.) Was it even an option to have a no-call situation for both the foul and the travel? Despite it being an obvious "by the book" travel, and despite our discussion here of other uncalled travels, I have certainly seen players fall to the ground before without a travel being called. Is the justification usually just something like "the play might not have had full control of the ball when he fell"...?

I'm sure I left some options out, as I got a little rushed here at the end. Feel free to add or comment, but this is what I wonder about when calls are or are not made at different times in the game. Even after he wrote that we would almost never see that call made, I still didn't know what the reason was. Was it a close call? Are officials specifically taught they should not make those calls?

[allenmurray]

If he's a real ref it's appropriate to write anonymously if only for self-preservation. .

He was introduced by DBR as such. Unless you are questioning the veracity of the owners and moderators of the site you hould drop the "if". If you don't like his columns don't read them. But enough with the incessant nit-picking.

[ncexnyc]

I'm surprised to see people are still discussing this play.

I've got a nice 37 inch LCD screen and watched the play in slow motion several times and still couldn't make out all the things some people claim happened. How can anyone expect the refs to see through that tangle of bodies and make a decent call?

At the very least that game should have gone into overtime. So if you want to be upset over losing that game, get mad at the team for whiffing on the inbounds play.

Better yet let it ride and worry about the Carolina game.;)

[SMO]

He was introduced by DBR as such. Unless you are questioning the veracity of the owners and moderators of the site you hould drop the "if". If you don't like his columns don't read them. But enough with the incessant nit-picking.

Incessant nit-picking? Picking out the "if" in my sentence surely qualifies as such. Perhaps you should practice what you're preaching.

[allenmurray]

It wasn't a one time thing on your part - that is why I don't see calling out your "If" as nit-picking. The owners and moderators of this site introduced him as a referee, who volunteered his time to write these columns. Yet in each of your posts you have questioned his credentials despite the fact that the owners/mods vouch for him.


self-proclaimed expert
I have no idea what the dude's qualifications are as he remains anonymous
If he's a real ref

Everyone else seems to enjoy his work and takes it for what it is, the opinions of an experienced referee. You just complain.

[feldspar]

I've got a nice 37 inch LCD screen and watched the play in slow motion several times and still couldn't make out all the things some people claim happened. How can anyone expect the refs to see through that tangle of bodies and make a decent call?

This is pretty rich.

Being on the floor, 5 to 15 feet away from the play is infinitely more helpful than viewing it from one camera angle from your barcalounger, 37-inch LCD notwithstanding.

Your argument is backwards. We should trust the officials' angle and proximity over our own lack of both.

[SMO]

It wasn't a one time thing on your part - that is why I don't see calling out your "If" as nit-picking. The owners and moderators of this site introduced him as a referee, who volunteered his time to write these columns. Yet in each of your posts you have questioned his credentials despite the fact that the owners/mods vouch for him.


self-proclaimed expert
I have no idea what the dude's qualifications are as he remains anonymous
If he's a real ref

Everyone else seems to enjoy his work and takes it for what it is, the opinions of an experienced referee. You just complain.

Everyone else enjoys his work? Now you're continuing to nit-pick and make things up. Not everyone enjoys his work - I've received PMs and seen posts that suggest others dislike him much more than I do. In fact, I can't even say I really dislike his work. I mentioned that some of it has been enlightening (read my posts!). I am not complaining and that is not all I do. That's a strange accusation to make if you look back at my posts and not selectively nitpick the quotes you don't like.

What I do think we need to keep in mind is that the guy is typically going to come down on the side of the officials and it is one anonymous (assumed to be qualified - don't want to offend you again!) official. I appreciate his willingness to write but I don't think any of us should overextrapolate from his work.

[CDu]

This is pretty rich.

Being on the floor, 5 to 15 feet away from the play is infinitely more helpful than viewing it from one camera angle from your barcalounger, 37-inch LCD notwithstanding.

Your argument is backwards. We should trust the officials' angle and proximity over our own lack of both.

I disagree. For one thing, the officials get ONE look at the play, at game speed, while we get repeated views in slow motion. They are also looking for a LOT of different things, while we're retroactively looking for one thing.

Also, with the number of bodies in the paint they may not actually get a very good look at it. In this example, the guy who made the call was behind the play. He had LD Williams between him and Henderson/Teague. I'm quite sure he had trouble actually seeing whether Henderson's foot hit the floor, as he not only had Williams in the way but also Teague's body (Henderson's foot was on the other side of Teague).

I think it's absurd to argue that the officials have a better view than we have in this case. There are almost certainly situations where the official's have a better view (not all camera angles are great, and sometimes there is a clear line of sight). But to argue that it is infinitely more helpful to watch it from 5-15 feet away with no replay and without the advantage of knowing exactly what to focus on is a ridiculous argument.

[feldspar]

I disagree. For one thing, the officials get ONE look at the play, at game speed, while we get repeated views in slow motion. They are also looking for a LOT of different things, while we're retroactively looking for one thing.

Which makes your argument moot.

Your implication is that having multiple looks at the same play puts you in a better position to judge that play. While it allows you to retroactively judge the play, it gives you no special insight into how the play should have been called in real time, with the proper angles and distance.

Using instant replay to judge plays is fun, but it doesn't tell us a whole lot about how a play actually should have been called.



I think it's absurd to argue that the officials have a better view than we have in this case. There are almost certainly situations where the official's have a better view (not all camera angles are great, and sometimes there is a clear line of sight). But to argue that it is infinitely more helpful to watch it from 5-15 feet away with no replay and without the advantage of knowing exactly what to focus on is a ridiculous argument.

Listen to the argument you're making. You're saying that we're better equipped to make a judgment on the play because we have multiple camera angles and instant replay. You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course we're better equipped to judge a play. That doesn't make our judgment correct, unless basketball starts using instant replays for most fouls and violations.

If you want to compare your ability to judge plays with that of the officials, you have to take OUT of the equation multiple camera angles and slo-mo replay. Only then will your comparison be equal.

[ncexnyc]

This is pretty rich.

Being on the floor, 5 to 15 feet away from the play is infinitely more helpful than viewing it from one camera angle from your barcalounger, 37-inch LCD notwithstanding.

Your argument is backwards. We should trust the officials' angle and proximity over our own lack of both.

Having a bad day? You seem really confused by my post, maybe you've had to much coffee, you might want to try the decaf it will definitely take the edge off, not sure if it will help with your rudeness.

[Olympic Fan]

I wish everybody would lighten up and get back to the subject.

First, I appreciate that the Playcaller takes the time to post here. I have no direct knowledge as to his qualifications, but knowing Julio and his introduction of the guy, I have no doubt that he's everything touted to be. He's not an anonymous poster -- he's an anonymous columnist. That's a big difference.

Second, I find his columns very informative. He's not just interpreting rules ... he's explaining why officials call things the way they do.

All that said, I do have a quibble about his latest column -- essentially the same quibble that started this thread. I have had a remarkably difficult time getting an answer to the simple question: when a player in the air lands on an opponent on the ground and stumbles, is that a foul or a traveling violation.

I was disappointed that the Playmaker essentially refused to answer that question. Forget all the extraneous stuff -- if Gerald was pushed in the air or grabbed by the elbow and pulled down, of course, it should have been a foul. Although frankly I saw none of that -- there was contact while he was in the air, but that's normal in a rebounding situation. I know that contact in itself is not a foul ... and any bump in the air didn't cause Gerald to stumble ... landing on Teague did.

I think I understand the motviation behind the reluctance to talk about the issue. Fans always latch on to a controversial late play and make that an excuse for a loss. I swear I am not doing that -- I understand that there were dozens of close calls in the game, some of which almost certainly went Duke's way -- and maybe a few that went wrongly in Duke's way. I'm a firm believer in the idea that officiating mistakes -- and like players, coaches and TV announcers, they DO make mistakes -- tend to even out over the course of a game.

I promise that I'm not Terping about the Henderson call. In my eyes, the game was lost fair and square, whether the late call was right or wrong.

I simply want a clearcut answer -- if a player goes in the air for a rebound or a pass and lands on an opponent lying on the court, forcing him to travel, is that a foul or is it a violation?

[feldspar]

I simply want a clearcut answer -- if a player goes in the air for a rebound or a pass and lands on an opponent lying on the court, forcing him to travel, is that a foul or is it a violation?

A violation.

Will that help you sleep better now?

[roywhite]

A violation.

Will that help you sleep better now?

Based on what?

[CDu]

Which makes your argument moot.

Your implication is that having multiple looks at the same play puts you in a better position to judge that play. While it allows you to retroactively judge the play, it gives you no special insight into how the play should have been called in real time, with the proper angles and distance.

Using instant replay to judge plays is fun, but it doesn't tell us a whole lot about how a play actually should have been called.

Uhh, actually, it DOES give us a better view how a play actually should have been called. It doesn't tell us how difficult the play was to call accurately, but it most certainly does give us a better chance to see what the correct call should have been.

Ideally, the call in real time should be identical to the call in replay. That can, of course, be difficult, and thus we tend to give officials a break on close calls. But you are implying the call should be different in real time than it should be in slow-motion. That is completely absurd.


Listen to the argument you're making. You're saying that we're better equipped to make a judgment on the play because we have multiple camera angles and instant replay. You're comparing apples to oranges. Of course we're better equipped to judge a play. That doesn't make our judgment correct, unless basketball starts using instant replays for most fouls and violations.

I've bolded your two sentences here because I can't honestly believe what you just wrote. It's just silly.

Officials are supposed to try their best to make the correct call. The correct call is absolute - it does not change in real time or in slow-mo replay. The only thing that changes is the difficulty with which it is to make the correct call. And because it is more difficult to make the correct call in real time, we give officials slack (or the reasonable ones do).

What you are doing is completely wrong. Because an official makes a call doesn't necessarily make it the correct call. It makes it the official call, but it doesn't necessarily make it the correct call.


If you want to compare your ability to judge plays with that of the officials, you have to take OUT of the equation multiple camera angles and slo-mo replay. Only then will your comparison be equal.

Why do our comparisons have to be equal? How is that possibly relevant? We're debating whether or not the correct call was made, not whether or not the officials did the best they could given the circumstance. I'm quite sure the official tried his best given that he had multiple bodies in his way and had to make a split-second call. But that doesn't necessarily mean he made the correct call.

It's a hard job to officiate - I know that for a fact. But by the nature of it being a hard job, you're going to make incorrect calls. It is most certainly easier to determine if the correct call was made with slow-mo replay and multiple camera angels than it is at real speed, on the fly, with one angle.

You seem to be getting caught between two arguments, and it's blurring your logic. The correct call doesn't vary based on being live or in replay. The relative ACCEPTABILITY of a call varies.

The debate being raged right now was whether it should have been called a travel, foul, or no-call in ideal circumstances. It's not whether or not it's acceptable to have made any particular call.

[CDu]

A violation.

Will that help you sleep better now?

The playcaller appears to disagree with you, saying that a reasonable case could be made that the wrong call was made there.

For the record, I'm fine with the call as it was made. I don't know for sure that it was the right call, but given the difficulty of the play (tough angle, split-second, lots of traffic), it's fine. I'd have been fine with a no-call (saying his foot didn't hit the floor or that he hadn't gained possession) as well. I probably wouldn't have called a foul, but that's a gray area I think.

I realize you think it was absolutely the correct call, but you're saying some crazy things in other posts as a result of that absolute position.

[feldspar]

Uhh, actually, it DOES give us a better view how a play actually should have been called. It doesn't tell us how difficult the play was to call accurately, but it most certainly does give us a better chance to see what the correct call should have been.

Ideally, the call in real time should be identical to the call in replay. That can, of course, be difficult, and thus we tend to give officials a break on close calls. But you are implying the call should be different in real time than it should be in slow-motion. That is completely absurd.



I've bolded your two sentences here because I can't honestly believe what you just wrote. It's just silly.

Officials are supposed to try their best to make the correct call. The correct call is absolute - it does not change in real time or in slow-mo replay. The only thing that changes is the difficulty with which it is to make the correct call. And because it is more difficult to make the correct call in real time, we give officials slack (or the reasonable ones do).

What you are doing is completely wrong. Because an official makes a call doesn't necessarily make it the correct call. It makes it the official call, but it doesn't necessarily make it the correct call.



Why do our comparisons have to be equal? How is that possibly relevant? We're debating whether or not the correct call was made, not whether or not the officials did the best they could given the circumstance. I'm quite sure the official tried his best given that he had multiple bodies in his way and had to make a split-second call. But that doesn't necessarily mean he made the correct call.

It's a hard job to officiate - I know that for a fact. But by the nature of it being a hard job, you're going to make incorrect calls. It is most certainly easier to determine if the correct call was made with slow-mo replay and multiple camera angels than it is at real speed, on the fly, with one angle.

You seem to be getting caught between two arguments, and it's blurring your logic. The correct call doesn't vary based on being live or in replay. The relative ACCEPTABILITY of a call varies.

The debate being raged right now was whether it should have been called a travel, foul, or no-call in ideal circumstances. It's not whether or not it's acceptable to have made any particular call.

I think we're making the same argument and talking past each other at this point.

Nowhere did I suggest that officials are perfect and their calls are correct based solely on the fact that they make the call.

I'm saying that it's foolish for us to assume that our judgment is comparable because we sit in a TV from home and have instant replay. It's pointless to pursue this path of logic because you're comparing two different sets of information.

[CDu]

I think we're making the same argument and talking past each other at this point.

Nowhere did I suggest that officials are perfect and their calls are correct based solely on the fact that they make the call.

I'm saying that it's foolish for us to assume that our judgment is comparable because we sit in a TV from home and have instant replay. It's pointless to pursue this path of logic because you're comparing two different sets of information.

I completely agree that it's easier to sit back and "armchair referee." My point is that, while we clearly have different points of reference, saying that we should trust the official's view because he has a better view is simply incorrect (both in the fact that he doesn't have a better view AND the fact that he may have made the wrong call). The official made the best call he could make given the view he had. I'm fine with the call that was made, as it was reasonable given the view he had. But that doesn't necessarily make it the correct call (could be it was the correct call, could be that it wasn't - hard to tell).

[Kfanarmy]

Feldspar suggested looking up the rule...which I did. Duke lost the game not because of the call, but because Wake made the last shot on a blown defense...grant it they don't get posession if travelling is not called. I am simply discussing the rule as a basketball fan and whether or not it would/wouldn't have been proper, under the rules to have called Teague for blocking, have a no call, or travelling. if blocking is called, there is no travelling call. I am not grousing about the game. I am enjoying the rule discussion at this point. So you are welcome to "go on to next play." -- essentially an attempt to make everyone else stop talking about something you don't want to talk about--and I'll continue to discuss while others are interested. If someone can tell me why it isn't blocking, I'd be interested....not whether or not travelling was appropriate, but why blocking was not, because it occurred first.

No where is it suggested that a player can remain on the floor and still be in a legal guarding position. my understanding from having reread the rules is that if you aren't in a legal guarding position and you impede the progress of the offensive player, you have committed a violation. I grant you that Teague may not have purposely done anything, but remain on the floor. however, intent is not at issue here. It isn't an "element of the crime." There is no precondition of intent to impede stated in the violation, impeding with or without intent is a violation.
Maybe we should hire a linguist and an attorney to work at every game. The phrase, or by bending his or her own body into other than a normal position implies that the bending was purposeful (otherwise it would have used and/or included the passive voice and also said, "or having had bent on one's behalf). If someone is knocked or falls to the floor it is a little difficult to say they bent thier own body into other than a normal position - in fact you could argue that lying on the floor is a normal position after you have fallen or been knocked down.

By rule he traveled. We lost. Next play.

[feldspar]

saying that the official made the correct call because he has a better view is simply incorrect
I don't recall ever saying this. If you can find it, let me know.

[feldspar]

If someone can tell me why it isn't blocking, I'd be interested....not whether or not travelling was appropriate, but why blocking was not, because it occurred first.

allenmurray already explained it to you. It's clear you either don't get it, or choose not to.

Either way, I don't think anyone can help you.

[CDu]

I don't recall ever saying this. If you can find it, let me know.

I edited my post to clarify what you said. Here's my point of reference for what you said, which is what started our current debate:


Being on the floor, 5 to 15 feet away from the play is infinitely more helpful than viewing it from one camera angle from your barcalounger, 37-inch LCD notwithstanding.

Perhaps you misstated what you meant to say. But saying that having the official's view is more helpful than watching the replays is not necessarily the case (especially in this case).

[feldspar]

I edited my post to clarify what you said. Here's my point of reference for what you said, which is what started our current debate:



Perhaps you misstated what you meant to say. But saying that having the official's view is more helpful than watching the replays is not necessarily the case (especially in this case).

Well, I would argue that in this case, the replays didn't help much. I honestly think being on the floor would have been much more helpful.

Yes, instant replay is helpful. It's even allowed in some cases in college basketball. You can, most times, gather additional information from instant replay and multiple angles.

My problem is when fans enter into the "should have called" arena, based on information gleaned from instant replay and multiple angles. Using these tools to justify why you think a play "should have been called" one way or the other is an exercise in futility.

[blueprofessor]

Feldspar suggested looking up the rule...which I did. Duke lost the game not because of the call, but because Wake made the last shot on a blown defense...grant it they don't get posession if travelling is not called. I am simply discussing the rule as a basketball fan and whether or not it would/wouldn't have been proper, under the rules to have called Teague for blocking, have a no call, or travelling. if blocking is called, there is no travelling call. I am not grousing about the game. I am enjoying the rule discussion at this point. So you are welcome to "go on to next play." -- essentially an attempt to make everyone else stop talking about something you don't want to talk about--and I'll continue to discuss while others are interested. If someone can tell me why it isn't blocking, I'd be interested....not whether or not travelling was appropriate, but why blocking was not, because it occurred first.

No where is it suggested that a player can remain on the floor and still be in a legal guarding position. my understanding from having reread the rules is that if you aren't in a legal guarding position and you impede the progress of the offensive player, you have committed a violation. I grant you that Teague may not have purposely done anything, but remain on the floor. however, intent is not at issue here. It isn't an "element of the crime." There is no precondition of intent to impede stated in the violation, impeding with or without intent is a violation.

that TH travels. Like others, I would be interested to know ,as stated in an earlier post, whether Teague fouled Hendo by "blocking".This curiosity has nothing to do with a desire not to look forward to the game tonight,"the next play", but rather to have a better understanding of the rule(s).

Given the tensions unleashed in this discussion, it may bring comic relief to consider the Wikipedia entry regarding traveling as follows:

Traveling (basketball)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In basketball, traveling is a violation of the rules that occurs when a player holding the ball illegally moves one or both of his feet. Most commonly, a player travels by illegally moving his pivot foot or taking too many steps without dribbling the ball.

Traveling is sometimes also called "walking" or "steps." The North Carolina Tar Heel's very own Tyler Hansbrough's :D best known basketball move is Traveling. The basic rules regarding traveling are fairly similar across the major leagues of basketball, but slight differences exist.

While Wikipedia is often an erroneous source ,in this case it is the authority!

Best regards to fellow Duke fans . Go, Duke!

Blueprofessor:):D

[CDu]

Well, I would argue that in this case, the replays didn't help much. I honestly think being on the floor would have been much more helpful.

Yes, instant replay is helpful. It's even allowed in some cases in college basketball. You can, most times, gather additional information from instant replay and multiple angles.

My problem is when fans enter into the "should have called" arena, based on information gleaned from instant replay and multiple angles. Using these tools to justify why you think a play "should have been called" one way or the other is an exercise in futility.

And (as I said before) I disagree. In this case, the official was blocked by LD Williams and by Teague's body. I think it's very unlikely that he could see whether or not Henderson's foot hit the floor. While there are certainly cases in which the official has the best view possible, I don't think this was one of them.

I agree that it is an exercise in futility to debate what should have been called. So is almost every discussion on a message board. Just because it is an exercise in futility doesn't mean it's not interesting to some people (or educational, as it can allow people to learn more about the rules).

[Kfanarmy]

allenmurray already explained it to you. It's clear you either don't get it, or choose not to.

Either way, I don't think anyone can help you.

well I would say that allenmurray's base argument is completely wrong if we are to truly nitpick the words. unless someone is knocked out, they indeed end up on the floor in a position that they determined. A person may be knocked off their feet but rarely do these athletes simply allow themselves to fall...and that isn't at the heart of the matter. What is at the heart of the matter is impeding progress, and I believe, the concept of a legal guarding position...which if I read the rules correctly, you can't be on the ground...no matter who put you there.

and the earlier poster was wrong...your not being rude, your being rude and displaying an arrogance that is rarely justified by performance.

[feldspar]

I agree that it is an exercise in futility to debate what should have been called. So is almost every discussion on a message board. Just because it is an exercise in futility doesn't mean it's not interesting to some people (or educational, as it can allow people to learn more about the rules).

Fair enough.

[DukeVu]

Would someone explain why diving on a loose ball and sliding across the floor does/is not traveling. I have seen this innumerable times when it is not called. Do the rules spell out that this is not a travel or is it a judgment call by the officials? And, if it is not traveling why are players allowed to just jump on top of them and get a jump ball. I have seen these actions many times and I have often wondered why not traveling or not a foul on the piling on.

[sagegrouse]

Would someone explain why diving on a loose ball and sliding across the floor does/is not traveling. I have seen this innumerable times when it is not called. Do the rules spell out that this is not a travel or is it a judgment call by the officials? And, if it is not traveling why are players allowed to just jump on top of them and get a jump ball. I have seen these actions many times and I have often wondered why not traveling or not a foul on the piling on.

Diving on the floor when the ball is on the floor is viewed as substantively different from the situation where a player has possession of the ball and falls to the floor. The latter has almost always been called travelling, presumably due to some mumbo jumbo about pivot feet, number of steps, etc.

sagegrouse
'Why do I feel it was really dumb to re-enter this thread?'

[CDu]

Would someone explain why diving on a loose ball and sliding across the floor does/is not traveling. I have seen this innumerable times when it is not called. Do the rules spell out that this is not a travel or is it a judgment call by the officials? And, if it is not traveling why are players allowed to just jump on top of them and get a jump ball. I have seen these actions many times and I have often wondered why not traveling or not a foul on the piling on.

It should be travelling. Same thing applies when you try to roll over or try to get up. When you are on the floor with possession of the ball, your body becomes your pivot "foot." Sliding your pivot foot is a travel, so sliding your pivot body is also a travel. It's often not called though. I guess the argument could be made that you don't have possession of the ball. It's not travelling if you don't have possession. But if you have possession and slide, it should be a travel.

The piling on should be a foul. I've never understood why this is allowed. Again, I think in practice it has to do with lack of clear possession. When the officials see a player dive for a loose ball, they simply say "nobody has possession, so we'll let'em play." Then the pile happens, and they either give a timeout to the guy who gets the ball or they call a jump ball if no one clearly establishes possession. But I think piling on should be called a foul.

[DukeVu]

Diving on the floor when the ball is on the floor is viewed as substantively different from the situation where a player has possession of the ball and falls to the floor. The latter has almost always been called travelling, presumably due to some mumbo jumbo about pivot feet, number of steps, etc.

sagegrouse
'Why do I feel it was really dumb to re-enter this thread?'

Thanks, just reading this thread reminded me of the aforementioned occurrences and never knew the ruling. Sliding with the ball just appears to be a travel to me.

[JBDuke]

Continuing to keep this open would seem to serve no purpose.

This thread is CLOSED.