The Playcaller

[DevilWolf]

While I definitely enjoy reading a referee's point of view on the game, and it's extremely educational, there are three things I don't like at all about the Wake game post:

1) there is no disclaimer that it's a lot different officiating the game from the couch than it is from the floor during a live game - which I felt was a little unfair to the crew that called this game

2) it has a strong underlying theme that the referees should have an equal impact on the game as the coaches and players, which is a problem I have with officiating in all sports at all levels. It's the job of the referees to enforce rules without getting in the way of the action. It's not their job to set the pace or the style of play. Nobody is paying to come watch the referees.

3) as much as I can't stand McFarland, I didn't like how the Playcaller brought up past incidents involving McFarland. I truly believe the only thing that should be relevant to how a referee calls a game is the way the current game is going. Sure, players get reputations but I don't believe a referee should officiate one player any different than another.

[DoubleDuke Dad]

While I definitely enjoy reading a referee's point of view on the game, and it's extremely educational, there are three things I don't like at all about the Wake game post:

1) there is no disclaimer that it's a lot different officiating the game from the couch than it is from the floor during a live game - which I felt was a little unfair to the crew that called this game

2) it has a strong underlying theme that the referees should have an equal impact on the game as the coaches and players, which is a problem I have with officiating in all sports at all levels. It's the job of the referees to enforce rules without getting in the way of the action. It's not their job to set the pace or the style of play. Nobody is paying to come watch the referees.

3) as much as I can't stand McFarland, I didn't like how the Playcaller brought up past incidents involving McFarland. I truly believe the only thing that should be relevant to how a referee calls a game is the way the current game is going. Sure, players get reputations but I don't believe a referee should officiate one player any different than another.

I was surprised that he thought the double technical was the correct call. What I saw was a deliberate take down of Zoubek by McFarland. If this was a wrestling match he would have gotten two points for that move!

[roywhite]

3) as much as I can't stand McFarland, I didn't like how the Playcaller brought up past incidents involving McFarland. I truly believe the only thing that should be relevant to how a referee calls a game is the way the current game is going. Sure, players get reputations but I don't believe a referee should officiate one player any different than another.

If the mindset expressed by Playcaller is typical of officials, or at least of some officials, that also suggests Zoubek has a reputation that produces quick whistles and assumed fouls.

[NSDukeFan]

While I definitely enjoy reading a referee's point of view on the game, and it's extremely educational, there are three things I don't like at all about the Wake game post:

1) there is no disclaimer that it's a lot different officiating the game from the couch than it is from the floor during a live game - which I felt was a little unfair to the crew that called this game

2) it has a strong underlying theme that the referees should have an equal impact on the game as the coaches and players, which is a problem I have with officiating in all sports at all levels. It's the job of the referees to enforce rules without getting in the way of the action. It's not their job to set the pace or the style of play. Nobody is paying to come watch the referees.

3) as much as I can't stand McFarland, I didn't like how the Playcaller brought up past incidents involving McFarland. I truly believe the only thing that should be relevant to how a referee calls a game is the way the current game is going. Sure, players get reputations but I don't believe a referee should officiate one player any different than another.

I also really enjoyed the refereeing analysis and agree that it is easier from the couch (as is coaching as sometimes seen on this board). I didn't get the same feeling as your second point as I didn't feel he was saying refs have an equal impact, but more that they can make it easier or more difficult for the players and coaches, depending on how consistent they are. They can also in certain cases ref in a way that makes it less likely to have dangerous plays.
I agree that only what happens in a game should matter, but sometimes players do sneaky or dirty things that unless you knew to look out for them, would miss them in a quick game situation.

[wilko]

I struggle with the notion of the advantage/disadvantage concept.

Sports is a form of fun escapism.
If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then its a duck, right?

So in a bball context, from a FAN point of view... if it looks like a travel, and acts like a travel, then its a travel, or foul, or palming or block or whatever. If you see it, call it. Bang. Plain and simple.

I argue that if a player palms the ball at midcourt unguarded, make the call! Not doing so offers advantage to the other team.

We all have stuff to do. Jobs, work, kids, school, honeydo lists... it shouldnt be over complicated. If I as a fan can spot that travel and then the ref swallows his whistle on a key play... how can I possibly have trust in the officiating crew to make the right call in that situation?

I know its difficult. I respect the job they do for the most part.
But really, When escoteric rule book interpretations get applied to something that seems SO obvious to the naked eye... its a disconnect. And that leaves everyone feeling frustrated.

[sagegrouse]

When the Grouse cackles, however, the H is usually silent.

I think it is a credit to this site and message board that an experienced official is willing to spend three hours and write up his observations on what many Duke fans thought was a very troubling game. Can you see the same kind of article being offered to IC or other fan sites?

As to the "very troubling game:" In the NBA, I think Ish Smith gets to sit out an entire game for his flagrant foul on MPII. And the same for Woods on Kyle. In fact, if Kyle doesn't show his toughness by bouncing right back up (take an 8 count, Kyle!), Woods may have been DQed Sunday night.

Also appreciated his comments about no calls early on obvious pushes and fouls early in the game. My guess: Wake-UNC tomorrow night will be a whistle symphony in the first few minutes. John Clougherty, ACC Coordinator of Officials, must have been appalled by Duke-Wake. I'll bet MacFarland is sitting with two fouls after three minutes of the game.

I especially appreciated his reference to "Tim Brando's absurd but predictable commentary." Whoop! Whoop! I was ready to throw a brick through my TV set during his idiotic rant. He was right in saying that the announcers didn't comment appropriately on the roughness in the game. I think this Pollyanna approach can also be laid at Brando's feet.

Interesting that he was totally offended by MPII's antics after his reverse slam. Shows what blinders I wear -- I thought it was fine.:) But then I have the nerve to write "IMHO."

sagegrouse

[MChambers]

I think it is a credit to this site and message board that an experienced official is willing to spend three hours and write up his observations on what many Duke fans thought was a very troubling game. Can you see the same kind of article being offered to IC or other fan sites?

Isn't it great? I love Playcaller's analysis, even if I disagree a little with some of his points.


Also appreciated his comments about no calls early on obvious pushes and fouls early in the game. My guess: Wake-UNC tomorrow night will be a whistle symphony in the first few minutes. John Clougherty, ACC Coordinator of Officials, must have been appalled by Duke-Wake. I'll bet MacFarland is sitting with two fouls after three minutes of the game.

Unfortunately, that should favor UNC, because they are deeper. Unless Drew or Davis gets into foul trouble. Also, Aminu is a matchup problem for UNC.


Interesting that he was totally offended by MPII's antics after his reverse slam. Shows what blinders I wear -- I thought it was fine.:) But then I have the nerve to write "IMHO."


I thought Mason was out of line. I always loved it when Dunleavy would make a spectacular play, like the one where he faked the three, dribbled into the lane, did a 360 and dunked, and then just ran back on defense. Just like he made that play all the time.

[DukeUsul]

I was surprised that he thought the double technical was the correct call. What I saw was a deliberate take down of Zoubek by McFarland. If this was a wrestling match he would have gotten two points for that move!

Well, Zoubek did give McFarland an elbow before he was pulled to the floor. I thought it was the right call.

[77devil]

Interesting that he was totally offended by MPII's antics after his reverse slam. Shows what blinders I wear -- I thought it was fine.:) But then I have the nerve to write "IMHO."sagegrouse



I thought Mason was out of line. I always loved it when Dunleavy would make a spectacular play, like the one where he faked the three, dribbled into the lane, did a 360 and dunked, and then just ran back on defense. Just like he made that play all the time.

Let's call it freshman exuberance. I'm guessing it won't happen again.

[Taco]

I don't always agree with The Playcaller but I absolutely love reading his columns. Hope to see more!

[Chitowndevil]

I greatly enjoyed the current column. I was exasperated with the officiating during the game, to the point that my wife was getting irritated with me. My concern, though, was exactly what the playcaller articulated: that game was allowed to get so physical that both sides are lucky no one (well, hopefully, fingers crossed for Kyle) was seriously injured.

One criticism, I'd have liked to see more on the intentional foul. Brando's commentary is wrong but it's more subtle than I thought. An intentional foul is broadly referred in the NCAA rules as "an act that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player". However it is clearly listed under the officiating guidelines for Intentional Personal fouling (Appendix III, Section 4):


f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

NCAA Basketball 2010 and 2011 Men's and Women's Rules (http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Basketball_Rules_9_3973f69a0-c408-43c9-81be-b4e85513c6e6.pdf)

(nb. I posted the latter comment in the postgame thread but thought it appropriate to repost here.)

[DevilWolf]

I think it is a credit to this site and message board that an experienced official is willing to spend three hours and write up his observations on what many Duke fans thought was a very troubling game. Can you see the same kind of article being offered to IC or other fan sites?

Good luck finding an official that knows more about officiating than the posters on IC.

[alteran]

Good luck finding an official that knows more about officiating than the posters on IC.

Zing!!!

[Biscuit King]

I agree with the original poster. If the game is out of control, call the coaches and the captains together and let them know things need to be reined in.

Reading a blow-by-blow of how one official thinks the game should have been "managed" made me even MORE frustrated than watching the game itself. If Zoubek pushes a guy in the back, call a foul. Just don't decide if it's a foul based on whether Mason Plumlee was taunting three minutes ago, and you are worried about what might happen next.

The one thing that Playmaker got right was this: coaches, fans and players just want consistency. There was none on Sunday night, especially from the first half to the second half. But consistency means calling the same plays fouls at both ends, not obsessing over players' reputations, game tempo/rhythm or makeup calls.

[tbyers11]

Reading a blow-by-blow of how one official thinks the game should have been "managed" made me even MORE frustrated than watching the game itself. If Zoubek pushes a guy in the back, call a foul. Just don't decide if it's a foul based on whether Mason Plumlee was taunting three minutes ago, and you are worried about what might happen next.


I agree with this statement completely. It seemed like the PlayCaller made all of his comments on the fouls or lack thereof based on prior knowledge that the rough stuff got way out of hand later (or had already gotten out of hand) in this game.

I know that it is difficult to officiate each play in a vacuum without respect to what has previously happened, but the way the Playcaller dissected the game made me think that officials make a lot more of their calls based on prior bad calls (or non-calls) and/or player actions than I previously realized. Some "management" is necessary to keep things from getting out of hand in certain cases but shouldn't each play be judged on its own merits as much as possible?

[DukieInKansas]

Is the analysis The Playcaller did of the game similar to what the officiating crew could expect from the conference officiating officials? (Or whatever you call the head of all the officials)

[Kedsy]

The one thing that Playmaker got right was this: coaches, fans and players just want consistency.

I thought he got a lot more than one thing right.

[CDu]

I agree with this statement completely. It seemed like the PlayCaller made all of his comments on the fouls or lack thereof based on prior knowledge that the rough stuff got way out of hand later (or had already gotten out of hand) in this game.

I know that it is difficult to officiate each play in a vacuum without respect to what has previously happened, but the way the Playcaller dissected the game made me think that officials make a lot more of their calls based on prior bad calls (or non-calls) and/or player actions than I previously realized. Some "management" is necessary to keep things from getting out of hand in certain cases but shouldn't each play be judged on its own merits as much as possible?

I agree that the tone came across as "hindsight 20/20," and I agree that there the Playcaller was suggesting a bit too much micromanaging of the game by the officials. I wonder if he or she was just guilty of trying to provide too much analysis so as not to sound completely repetitive. In short, the fouls could/should have been summarized as:

1. the officials were inconsistent
2. they often let too many fouls go uncalled
3. they often called too many ticky-tack fouls that maybe shouldn't have been called

I agree with the Playcaller that inconsistency played a big part in the physical play. But I think the Playcaller was guilty of some overanalysis of what the officials should have been thinking. If an official spent all the time coming up with a decision to make a particular call as suggested by the Playcaller, they'd miss all the calls. I think the simpler answer would be "if it is a foul, call it."

I think the overarching theme of the game summary by the Playcaller was that the officials should have been an awareness of the tendency for Duke/Wake games to become overly physical. They should have had a clear plan about what they were going to call as fouls, and then they should have been consistent in calling it that way. Instead, the officials seemed unwilling or unable to minimize the excessive physical play from the getgo.

[sagegrouse]

I agree with this statement completely. It seemed like the PlayCaller made all of his comments on the fouls or lack thereof based on prior knowledge that the rough stuff got way out of hand later (or had already gotten out of hand) in this game.




from Biscuit King -- Reading a blow-by-blow of how one official thinks the game should have been "managed" made me even MORE frustrated than watching the game itself. If Zoubek pushes a guy in the back, call a foul. Just don't decide if it's a foul based on whether Mason Plumlee was taunting three minutes ago, and you are worried about what might happen next.


My assumption is that the Playcaller watched the game, made notes, and prepared his comments afterwards. Therefore, his comments were made with a knowledge of the outcome. I can't imagine how it could have been done differently -- except through dictation. [We can provide him a steno.]

I was also bemused about this comment from the Playcaller"


"14:54-If the crew could have ordered up a play in the last time-out, it probably would have been Obvious Foul on Zoubek. The Duke big man obliges on Aminu’s drive to the hoop. That sends him to the bench with four fouls, which cannot possibly hurt this game."


I don't really think this was said with malice, but I was a bit bemused by the comment.

sagegrouse

[allenmurray]

Of course the tone was hindsight - that is what it was. He isn't trying to call the game - he is giving us a review of how the game was called.

So, we have an experienced college official (who also is a good writer) giving us a lengthy column on how games are called (and in the process providing insight into a part of the game that most readers here claim they know a whole lot more about than they really do - I'd say a ratio of about 100 : 1) and folks choose to pick him apart.

Perhaps we need a new slogan for a new site (remember - this is a new site, the former owners are now just "employees", and the site is owned by a third party)

DBR - where the posters' sense of entitlement is exceeded only by their own sense of self-importance.

[Lord Ash]

Of course the tone was hindsight - that is what it was. He isn't trying to call the game - he is giving us a review of how the game was called.

So, we have an experienced college official (who also is a good writer) giving us a lengthy column on how games are called (and in the process providing insight into a part of the game that most readers here claim they know a whole lot more about than they really do - I'd say a ratio of about 100 : 1) and folks choose to pick him apart.

Perhaps we need a new slogan for a new site (remember - this is a new site, the former owners are now just "employees", and the site is owned by a third party)

DBR - where the posters' sense of entitlement is exceeded only by their own sense of self-importance.

Wow... Allen, I think that is a touch unfair, when people are responding to a column about how games are reffed, as they might be expected to do on an internet forum. Maybe someone will suggest DBR - where people are cut down for responding to a post by being called self-entitled and having too much of a sense of self-importance? I can't imagine that would help things...

I think maybe less response to fellow posters and more to the column itself or the follow-up points made by the posters might be a better tactic.

[uh_no]

I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents

I reffed some IM games in my time here, now obvioulsy its a lot different than varsity ball, and obviously actual refs have much more experience/training

but what I got out of that experience is that reffing is hard as diamond. I have enourmous respect for what real refs do and how they are able to do their best to call a fair game even with all the junk they get from fans/coahces/players

I found it was a LOT harder to see fouls/violations from the student section than it is right up in the action....i don't know if its the wider angle so you can see more of whats going on or what....but up close, I found it a lot harder to see calls that might have been obvious from farther back

fans in the stands look for a few things, contact, traveling, etc, but the refs on the floor have several other responsibilites...counting 10 seconds, counting 5 seconds, counting 3 seconds.....and doing all the crazy arm action that goes along with counting....fans don't have to worry about that....and this may be cause for a missed call here and there because the counting must be done (refs also have to worry about being in position, moving around, and not getting run over by players.....fans don't)

also, its easy to call fouls from the arm chair....when you have all the time in the world....refs gotta do it when it happens....no thiknking should I blow the whistle or not....because if you think....then its too late to call it anyway

I'm not pretending to be any more knowledgeable than anyone else here....seriously...i reffed like 2 months for IM games....but I htink that doing it on any level gives you a certain insight that you might not have otherwise

[Biscuit King]

None of this changes the fact that Ted Valentine should be banned for life from officiating. That would be a simple solution.

[uh_no]

None of this changes the fact that Ted Valentine should be banned for life from officiating. That would be a simple solution.

we got the names of the officials at halftime on the stat sheet, but couldn't get a good 'valentine' cheer going

[camion]

I must say that in reading many of the responses here I was reminded of one time in college where I listened to a fellow student explain to my college roommate, a guard on the football team, how he should perform his blocking assignments. My roommate listened politely, but later we agreed it was obvious that he'd never been in the trenches where theory gives way to practicality.

I would take Playcaller's analysis as one example of how things are done in real world situations. I don't doubt that his experience trumps the knowledge of most of us theoretical referees.

[tbyers11]

Of course the tone was hindsight - that is what it was. He isn't trying to call the game - he is giving us a review of how the game was called.


First off, I do appreciate the PlayCaller taking his time to share with us his knowledge and lend insight into the game from an official's perspective. I've reffed soccer and basketball, but only at a youth level, and I appreciate how many split-second decisions you have to make even when blowing the whistle on 12 year olds. And I do realize that he was doing this in hindsight unless he was watching the tape of a game that he hadn't seen. I guess my question might be better stated as, because the Playcaller discussed the officiating crews management, or lack thereof, so much in his discussion of the game, do officials actually think about this "managment" a lot while actually working the game? I think it would be an interesting question.




I think the overarching theme of the game summary by the Playcaller was that the officials should have been an awareness of the tendency for Duke/Wake games to become overly physical. They should have had a clear plan about what they were going to call as fouls, and then they should have been consistent in calling it that way. Instead, the officials seemed unwilling or unable to minimize the excessive physical play from the getgo.

Most big-time officials work 4-5 games a week and obviously don't work the same match-ups every season. They obviously aren't aware of the physical nature of the Wake-Duke games the last few years like we fans are. Is John Clougherty (as supervisor of ACC officials) supposed to make the officials aware of this before particular matchups or does this type of thing just get lost in the shuffle?

I hope this didn't offend the entitlement and self-importance police ;)

[Duvall]

None of this changes the fact that Ted Valentine should be banned for life from officiating. That would be a simple solution.

It's just a shame that Knight couldn't have called Sunday night's game. That could have been epic.

[tele]

I've wondered if ACC expansion resulted in not only more teams and games, but also more refs and lesser officiating.

I liked the Playcallers article, gives an idea of how officials game calls might be reviewed and graded by the league. Also showed that it can be complicated and nuanced to call a game but also simple, just "blow the whistle"!