New Columnist

[DukeDevilDeb]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm thrilled at the idea that the Play Caller will be a regular and hopefully frequent columnist for DBR. This is a great idea, one that is long overdue.

Lots of the threads started here are caused by perceived errors in officiating. We rant, we rave, we say "Hansbrough gets all the calls." But many of us don't get the chance to see the game up close and, therefore, don't have much insight into what the officials are doing.

I found two statements in this opening column fascinating:

1. 'Once one grasps this division of labor and some of the more nuanced ideas that guide officials’ judgments, some very entertaining questions become readily accessible, such as why DeMarcus Nelson’s technical foul against Virginia Tech may have been the highest quality call of the year in the ACC' (can't wait to read that explanation!).

and

2. 'Most importantly, why Tyler Hansbrough gets away with traveling so often.


One of the things I truly love about DBR is how much I learn every time I read the threads. Jumbo, Jason, Bob, throaty, Julio... lots of these people know much more about basketball than I. But this will really give a unique perspective!

Once again, thanks DBR for being the best damn site on the whole Internet. I cannot imagine what I would do if I could no longer have you as my home page. :)

[weezie]

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

[greybeard]

I, for one, think that this is superfluous, what with Feldspar and all. I wouldn't want to be this guy if he should get one wrong! ;)

[WeepingThomasHill]

I am really excited about the Play Caller so that we don't have to be subjected to Feldspar's lectures on officiating.

[weezie]

I, for one, think that this is superfluous, what with Feldspar and all. I wouldn't want to be this guy if he should get one wrong! ;)


IF?!

[tbyers11]

I am really excited about the Play Caller so that we don't have to be subjected to Feldspar's lectures on officiating.

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

[Taco]

... such as why DeMarcus Nelson’s technical foul against Virginia Tech may have been the highest quality call of the year in the ACC' ...

Yeah I really hope he expounds on that because what the hell

[pamtar]

I too am exited about the Playcaller.

However, I dread the day when he tells us we have no reason to whine about the refs after a bad loss:
1) because he'd be right, and
2) because sometimes I need an excuse to keep my head from exploding.

[Clipsfan]

I, for one, would love to know why our guys keep getting Ts for verbally (not physically) responding to blatantly hard fouls (e.g. Singler's T on Saturday).

[weezie]

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

I hope he's Karl Hesse.

[feldspar]

I, for one, would love to know why our guys keep getting Ts for verbally (not physically) responding to blatantly hard fouls (e.g. Singler's T on Saturday).

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

[riverside6]

I emailed Play Caller about the Gerald Henderson travel call in the UNC game that was discussed on the board. Here's an excerpt from his response...

I'll definitely be mentioning this play in a future column. The truth is that there's really not a whole lot to say. The best college official in the country, Tony Green, missed this one. He won't miss another one like that for a decade.

[MChambers]

I emailed Play Caller about the Gerald Henderson travel call in the UNC game that was discussed on the board. Here's an excerpt from his response...

I'll definitely be mentioning this play in a future column. The truth is that there's really not a whole lot to say. The best college official in the country, Tony Green, missed this one. He won't miss another one like that for a decade.

Play Caller is Hank Nichols!

[rthomas]

Two words: Lennie Wurtz!

[Devil07]

I'd love to hear Play Caller's explanation for the end of the 'Nova/Georgetown game. For those who didn't see it, the game was tied. Nova had the last possession and Scottie Reynolds drove the lane. There was some contact but a probably good no-call. He made a bad pass, and with 1 second left Georgetown got the ball. The Georgetown player (Wallace I think) then went to dribble out the clock. With 0.1 seconds left he was barely bumped, and I mean barely. The ref called the blocking foul and Wallace made the free throw. Game over. I'd love to hear the rationale behind that call versus the no-call right before. It was a travesty, and the announcers were saying so. Terrible end to the game. In the words of the announcers, "awful."

[Indoor66]

Two words: Lennie Wurtz!

That's Lenny Wirtz....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n2_v222/ai_20165859

[Jarhead]

I can tell from his article that he isn't Lenny Wirtz. He has too good a sense for the game. He must have played collegiate hoops somewhere.

[DukeDevilDeb]

I hope he's Karl Hesse.

Don't you think Karl Hesse has been around for more than 9 years?! His first column said, "The Play Caller is a nine-year high school and college basketball official who happens to be a Duke fan. "

[devildeac]

That's Lenny Wirtz....

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n2_v222/ai_20165859

you are all wrong-it is lennie worst

[johnb]

I'd love to hear Play Caller's explanation for the end of the 'Nova/Georgetown game. For those who didn't see it, the game was tied. Nova had the last possession and Scottie Reynolds drove the lane. There was some contact but a probably good no-call. He made a bad pass, and with 1 second left Georgetown got the ball. The Georgetown player (Wallace I think) then went to dribble out the clock. With 0.1 seconds left he was barely bumped, and I mean barely. The ref called the blocking foul and Wallace made the free throw. Game over. I'd love to hear the rationale behind that call versus the no-call right before. It was a travesty, and the announcers were saying so. Terrible end to the game. In the words of the announcers, "awful."

You got your wish.

What an excellent essay; it opens up an aspect of the game that is important and rarely discussed--great job, Play Caller. Keep it up...

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

You got your wish.

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

[grossbus]

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

[BlueintheFace]

I hope he's Karl Hesse.

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

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

[Indoor66]

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

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

Did he die? :confused: :rolleyes:

[ojaidave]

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

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

Great read, thanks Playcaller.

[TillyGalore]

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

Great read, thanks Playcaller.

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

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

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

[Devil07]

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

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

[allenmurray]

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

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

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

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

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

[DukeDevilDeb]

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

Great read, thanks Playcaller.

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

[wilko]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RPS]

This is a GREAT idea. I hope our Playcaller brings his expertise (and I'm using that phrase loosely :D ) to this table as often as possible.
I also hope he's got a sense of humor.Of course, if s/he is both a referee and a Duke fan who also calls Duke games, it's no wonder we get all the calls!

[Clipsfan]

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

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

[JasonEvans]

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

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

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

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

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

[RPS]

But, I must dissent with his most recent column. I would much rather read more about the merrit of what appeared to be a horrible call than hear him bash the announcers for agreeing it was a horrible call.I disagree. The problem is that the evaluation of whether the call was poor or not is based upon a prior conclusion as to whether or not the GU player was OOB. If not OOB, pretty much everyone would agree that it was a lousy call. But if OOB, a call of some sort must be made -- foul or turnover. PC's discussion was framed in the context of the announcers jumping to the second level without passing through the first. I think PC was spot-on.


What I would have rather read about would be a column about the reality of end-of-game situations and how refs change their whistle blowing in those situations.I'd like to read that column too. But it's an entirely different column.


A column where the ref bashes the officials for criticizing the refs -- well, that was a bit obvious and predictible if you ask me.Except that PC implied that s/he agreed with the criticism of the refs if the Hoya player was not OOB. The criticism of the announcers wasn't predicated upon their excoriating the officials per se, but rather upon their misunderstanding of the nature and context of the call.

[SilkyJ]

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

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

headache




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



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

p.s. where you been?

[BlueintheFace]

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

[Lulu]

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

[feldspar]

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

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

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

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

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

[JAS]

Agree with Jason and DCDD on this. I was surprised and disappointed at the column. I'd rather see that kind of breakdown from someone with announcing experience, someone who has been in that situation and had to very quickly relay the scene and give an opinion to a national television audience. From PC, I was hoping to hear more about what Jason and DCDD have already mentioned - the minutia that goes into making that call in that circumstance. Even if that call is very easy to make, we've seen it not get called plenty of other times. Tell us why that happens, about tendencies, about other things that come into play in making - or not making - a call like that.

[darthur]

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

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

I don't understand this comment. I really don't. I am even somewhat shocked a poster I respect as much as you would say something like this.

You say you want the column to explore the merit of the call. And then you say you don't like the explanation the column gives. As far as *I* can tell, that IS the real explanation. It is up to us to come to grips with the fact that this is how referees are SUPPOSED to call games, or to lobby to get that changed. It is NOT up to us to rag on the person who explains the rule just because we disagree with it.

And the Playercaller's explanation has now been backed up in several places. See for example this quote from the Big East commissioner:

"There is no force-out rule and if [Wallace] was forced out, he either was bumped for a foul or he stepped out of bounds," Hyland said. "When a kid is bumped and goes out of bounds, you have to make a call. It's a judgment call."

So you are unhappy the Playcaller's bashing the commentators? Why? As the article (and other comments since then) have made clear, the ONLY issue is whether the Georgetown player stepped out of bounds. And yet, the commentators completely failed to address this. The Playcaller's main complaint is that the commentators totally misunderstood what the officiating issue was. The Playcaller is fully qualified to say this, and if it is true, it is absolutely a bad thing. And the commentators should be criticized for it.

As for your comment about the slightness of the bump, I don't even know what to say. The article seemed to make it clear that this was totally irrelevant. A touch foul that DIRECTLY results in a turnover (which is what happened assuming you believe the Georgetown player stepped out of bounds) absolutely, positively, must be called a foul. Otherwise, you are hugely rewarding the fouler.

It just seems to me you are criticizing the article because you disagree with the rules of basketball, which seems pretty unfair.

[darthur]

3) Even if it was the correct call, it is clearly a controversial one. A lengthy discussion of why s/he thinks it was the correct one citing examples from other games, the applicable rules, etc may have been persuasive and almost certainly would have been interesting and informative. Instead we got a 1 sentence "defense" of the call and 8-10 paragraphs of deflecting blame to the announcers. A column that could have been entertaining and informative instead came off, to me, as petty and defensive. If others did enjoy it, more power to them.

This is a totally unreasonable, and borderline insulting demand. You have an actual ref explaining to you why refs call the game the way they do. And you are basically telling him he is wrong, and you demand an essay of proof.

I, for one, am ecstatic to have someone on the inside just explaining how things work. If I want bickering about the way things *should* be, I'll listen to the commentators or read blogs. I'd much rather learn something about the way they *are*, thank you.

[kcduke75]

I would love an answer to a play that still haunts me.

Bruce Benedict (that's not you is it?) caught he$$ from Meek (?) for a failure to call a admitted tackle of Boozer (or was it Shelden?) at the end of an NCAA game. He rebounded a missed free throw, down one, and was trying to put it in when he had a WWF move put on him.

To compound the problem, we were penalized for Meek's tirade (probably the right response to a big wrong - but that does not help the story).

Pardon my poor memory of this specific instance (help!), but it would be nice to know what officials are thinking the last 5 seconds of a big game.

Welcome, and I loved your perspective on the unfortunate Georgetown win.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

This is a totally unreasonable, and borderline insulting demand. You have an actual ref explaining to you why refs call the game the way they do. And you are basically telling him he is wrong, and you demand an essay of proof.

I, for one, am ecstatic to have someone on the inside just explaining how things work. If I want bickering about the way things *should* be, I'll listen to the commentators or read blogs. I'd much rather learn something about the way they *are*, thank you.

Chillax. A lot of posters thought it would be neat to hear something more than: "that's the rule." Heck, s/he didn't even cite to the rule itself as evidence that it is the rule. Like a lot of people, I was surprised by the way the game ended since is out of step with the way I generally see end-of-game situations officiated. I would have been very interested in (perhaps even ecstatic) to hear it "explain[ed] . . . why refs call the game the way they do."

Unfortunately, as Jason noted, the column was short on explanation and long on announcer-bashing. I love knocking announcers as much as the next guy, but this person presented themself as an expert on officiating and then offhandedly tossed aside an interesting case dealing with the officials. No examples from other games, no inside info about the culture of officials, etc. Instead, s/he spent the overwhelming bulk of the article pontificating on the announcing, an area that s/he is (to my knowledge) no more qualified to discuss than I am. Jay Bilas could write a well-informed, insightful column on the good/bad of announcing. I expected this person to write a well-informed insightful column on officiating. I didn't find it to be so. You did. Good for you.

edited to add: kcduke75, I think you are remembering Mad Matt Christensen's outburst after Boozer was bearhugged in '02 against Indiana. Matt had to write a letter apologizing after the game. I know I felt like he wasn't the only one who should have written an apology for the end of that game.

[darthur]

Heck, s/he didn't even cite to the rule itself as evidence that it is the rule.

You're *still* doing it. It is not his duty to *prove* to you the rules (as refs are taught to call them) are what they are. He tells you what they are. And if you don't believe him, you should calmly ask yourself which of the two of you is the expert.


Like a lot of people, I was surprised by the way the game ended since is out of step with the way I generally see end-of-game situations officiated. I would have been very interested in (perhaps even ecstatic) to hear it "explain[ed] . . . why refs call the game the way they do."

Pray tell, how many no-calls have you seen on touch fouls leading to out-of-bounds plays in close end-game situations? The whole point of the column was that this situation was qualitatively different from general end-game situations because there was an out-of-bounds, and that leaves the referee no choice but to call something. The column was crystal clear on this. What more do you want? The article specifically explains exactly what separated this game from the others.


Unfortunately, as Jason noted, the column was short on explanation and long on announcer-bashing.

First of all, as I said, I simply cannot understand what more explanation could have been included. I came away feeling I had an absolutely perfect grasp of why the call was made the way it was. I still feel that way. What you are asking for is some sort of moral justification for why the RULE is what it is. As I said, I'm glad the article didn't go there. You obviously disagree, but I'd point out that when it comes to moral judgments, a ref is no more qualified than us. I'd rather he talks about what he is an expert on.

Which brings us to the commentators. Yes, maybe he went on for a while. Personally, I didn't mind since I can't stand commentators' comments on refs, and never have been able to. You can disagree on this. But I would remind you that his central point here was that the commentators were flat-out WRONG about the rules - that their representation of how these things are called was incredibly misleading. And he is perfectly qualified to make that point.

[SilkyJ]

I
2) If only a toenail touched the line I'd actually prefer a no call, as we've all seen done numerous times over the years. That may not be what the rulebook says, but it's clearly been the practice for a long time, as evidenced by the overwhelming negative response from everyone that isn't closing ranks in defense of fellow officials.

NO. NO. NO.

Speak for yourself. I have NOT seen that not called numerous times, and I would FREAK OUT if I EVER saw it not called. That is an absolutely LUDICROUS, INSANE, and ABSURD suggestion.

I am a tennis and squash player and LINES ARE LINES ARE LINES ARE LINES. Either the ball/toe/whatever touches the line or it doesn't touch the line. Or maybe the better way to put it is, either you SAW it touch the line or you DIDN'T see it touch the line. whatever. its black and white. yes and no. right and wrong. Period.

Back to why its ridiculous: Think about what you are opening yourself up to with that suggestion. If you want a "toenail" on the line to be a no-call, then where does the call start? End of toenail? 1st knuckle of the toe? Where the toes end and the foot begins?????

You can't have interpretation when it comes to lines. With foul calling and stuff you can (usually) adjust to that within the flow of the game so the refs can decide to call it "tight" or loose or whatever. But you simply cannot have that with lines b/c the margin for error becomes way to small. You don't call it when the guy is "1/10 th" of an inch over the line, but you do call it when he's 1/8th? I mean come on!!

To say nothing of the fact that your suggestion is asking the ref to ignore the rules! Ref's can "ignore" or at least "interpret" the foul calling rules in certain situations (like not calling ticky tacky crap in close late games) but lines are lines man. end of story.

Playcaller put it best, when he said there is NO GREY AREA WHEN IT COMES TO LINES (and I put it much less eloquently when I said lines are lines are lines, hehe).

[/FREAKINGOUTCAPSLOCKRANT]

p.s. i must echo jumbo's sentiment from last week: I love you all.

p.p.s. excellent use of chillax in an earlier post. personal favorite of mine. probably applies to me too :)

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

You're *still* doing it. It is not his duty to *prove* to you the rules (as refs are taught to call them) are what they are. He tells you what they are. And if you don't believe him, you should calmly ask yourself which of the two of you is the expert.

I suppose you could write an entire column that simply read: "That was the correct call. I'm an official and you're not. QED." Wouldn't be very entertaining, educational, or frankly valuable. A column I'd be more interested in would say " the rule is this [cite]. As we've seen in [games a, b, and c] it has been consistently applied." If PC were officiating a game, I'd accept PC's call as final since PC was empowered by the ACC to make that decision. In a conversation, claims to authority with no citation, examples, or even discussion are, to me, unpersuasive. More to the point, they don't add anything to the conversation.


Pray tell, how many no-calls have you seen on touch fouls leading to out-of-bounds plays in close end-game situations? The whole point of the column was that this situation was qualitatively different from general end-game situations because there was an out-of-bounds, and that leaves the referee no choice but to call something. The column was crystal clear on this. What more do you want? The article specifically explains exactly what separated this game from the others.

Pray tell, how many calls with 0.1 seconds 70' feet from the basket have you seen made to decide a game? I'd guess not too many since every commentator (including several former players and coaches, btw), as well as every observer (even those with no vested interest in the outcome) expressed overwhelming shock at the call. There's still no evidence that the player was OOB at all, much less that it was so obvious that the officials needed to decide the game with a call that I have never seen made in several decades of watching and playing basketball.


First of all, as I said, I simply cannot understand what more explanation could have been included. I came away feeling I had an absolutely perfect grasp of why the call was made the way it was. I still feel that way. What you are asking for is some sort of moral justification for why the RULE is what it is. As I said, I'm glad the article didn't go there. You obviously disagree, but I'd point out that when it comes to moral judgments, a ref is no more qualified than us. I'd rather he talks about what he is an expert on.

Which brings us to the commentators. Yes, maybe he went on for a while. Personally, I didn't mind since I can't stand commentators' comments on refs, and never have been able to. You can disagree on this. But I would remind you that his central point here was that the commentators were flat-out WRONG about the rules - that their representation of how these things are called was incredibly misleading. And he is perfectly qualified to make that point.

Look, I'm glad you enjoyed the column. I didn't. I've tried to explain what I felt it was lacking (some insight beyond "I'm an official and I say the officials did fine") and what I felt didn't work ("Those darn commentators are stupid. If only they were smart like us officials" for 90% of the column). I haven't heard anything that has persuaded me, and I don't seem to be persuading you, so how about you read and enjoy the columns and I don't, and we can all be happy. :)

[CTDukeFan]

I think it's great to have Play Caller writing a column on DBR. Perhaps he did go on a bit long about the commentators, but I believe the commentators in college basketball have begun to question the officiating more and more and that doesn't help the game of basketball.

As to the request to "cite a rule" I guess he could have cited the out-of-bounds rule - but he probably assumed you knew it. Here's a link to the NCAA 2008 rulebook - http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf. There's a whole section on out of bounds.

I used to be very critical of refs and complaing about what a bad job they were doing. DBR had a post a few years ago from a ref that opened my eyes and I've tried to learn more since then about how officials work. It has given me an appreciation for the great job they do (even J.J. missed a free throw now and then, and you expect three human beings like yourself to make every call right?

Thanks DBR for bringing the Play Caller to your site!

[feldspar]

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

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

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

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

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

I respectfully disagree with you on this one, Jason.

The fact of the matter is that the announcers--and their penchant for spouting off whatever useless and often factually incorrect information may come to their minds at the time--are, in my opinion, are one of the primary culprits in the fact that many casual basketball fans really have no clue as to the rules of basketball. I haven't watched a basketball game to date this season in which I have not heard a college basketball analyst make an untrue or outlandish statement when it comes to either the mechanics or the rules of officiating and as I have posited before, that is detrimental to the game of basketball.

Yes, someone with experience in television, such as yourself, might be qualified to comment on this issue, but the fact is that you would be hard-pressed to find someone with extensive broadcast/media knowledge who also has extensive experience in officiating. And extensive experience in officiating is central to understanding and analyzing the problem that The Playcaller was addressing.

I commend him for tackling the subject matter because, in my opinion, it's LONG overdue.

ETA: Also not being discussed is that no camera angle makes up for being right on top of the play, as the officials are. Think of how awesome it is to sit courtside at a basketball game and how different the game looks when you do. Now imagine moving your seat ON TO the court and imagine how much different the game would feel then. These officials have the kind of angles and looks at plays that replay will NEVER have, and basing our assumptions on television replay isn't really the most reliable practice.

[Dukerati]

For people who are defending the play call, it comes down to:

The official thought the player stepped out of bounds due to some (minor) contact. As a result, he had to make a call.

I have two comments/questions on this line of reasoning.

1) Numerous replays fail to show the Georgetown player going out of bounds. There have been slow-downs and blow-ups and multiple angles, still no concrete evidence. Perhaps the official thought he did go out of bounds. It was certainly close. However, if modern technology can not definitively show any out-of-bounds, I, for one, am inclined to say he did NOT go out of bounds. This would mean the call was bad. The official made a tough judgement call and got it wrong. I don't think I am saying something revolutionary here. Even the playcaller said it was "marginal, questionable in fact."

2) If this is indeed the rule, what about all the traps in the corner or contested rebounds that result in the player going out of bounds? One can safely say that if not for the body contact from the other players, these players would not have gone out of bounds. We all know this is not called ALL the time. And I mean all the time. More commonly, this type of action results in the player calling timeout or desperately throwing the ball before falling out of bounds. Are all these non-calls wrong?

[feldspar]

However, if modern technology can not definitively show any out-of-bounds, I, for one, am inclined to say he did NOT go out of bounds.

Personally, I distrust technology for the most part. I'm much more likely to trust a guy who is a few feet from the play at looking at the line.


The official made a tough judgement call and got it wrong.

In your opinion. I'm sure you just forgot to add that caveat.

[allenmurray]

For people who are defending the play call, it comes down to:

The official thought the player stepped out of bounds due to some (minor) contact. As a result, he had to make a call . . .

. . . Numerous replays fail to show the Georgetown player going out of bounds. There have been slow-downs and blow-ups and multiple angles, still no concrete evidence. Perhaps the official thought he did go out of bounds. It was certainly close. However, if modern technology can not definitively show any out-of-bounds, I, for one, am inclined to say he did NOT go out of bounds.

Do you suggest stopping the game for extensive replays of every close out-of-bounds play? The official was right on top of the play. You can't have officials afraid to make a call becasue they are wroried that technology might show they were wrong. Even the NFL takes the position that the official's call stands unless there is clear evidence to over-rule it. In this case the foot was so clsoe to the line that even under NFL rules the call probably would have stood.

The defender was the one who made a bone-headed decision, not the official. Riding a ball handler that closely, 70 feet from the basket, with virtually no time left in the game, could only accomplish one thing - picking up a stupid foul.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

NO. NO. NO.

You can't have interpretation when it comes to lines. With foul calling and stuff you can (usually) adjust to that within the flow of the game so the refs can decide to call it "tight" or loose or whatever. But you simply cannot have that with lines b/c the margin for error becomes way to small. You don't call it when the guy is "1/10 th" of an inch over the line, but you do call it when he's 1/8th? I mean come on!!


I can totally respect that point of view. My own view is that judgment calls about lines are made all the time, in the heat of the moment, and often incorrectly. Was that toe on the edge of the three point line or not? Was the ball advanced past the halfcourt line just in time or just too late? Was the shooter still touching it as the shotclock expired, or had it just lost contact? And where were that player's feet while I was watching his hands to see if he beat the shotclock?

In this environment where every call, even those involving lines, is subjective (and sometimes just missed) the general rule seems to be advantage/disadvantage. Here, a slight bump that NEVER would have been called in isolation was accompanied by a potential toenail on the sideline (maybe, despite there being NO video evidence that he was). No advantage was gained (in football they'd call that "offsetting penalties"), so why in the world would you interpose yourself on a game that was clearly headed to overtime? Because you maybe saw a player maybe graze the sideline after he was nudged? There's no slippery slope for me. If you're not sure, why blow the whistle at that time in that situation?

All that said, I can respect the "rules are rules" argument, even if I haven't seen much on the court to suggest that it is the order of the day. My critique is that you spent more time arguing that it was correct in your one post than PC did in the entire column. PC assumed away the correctness of the call and then spent the bulk of the article roasting the commentators. This basically skipped past the area of PC's expertise in favor of ranting about a pet peeve that PC has no special insight or authority regarding. A missed opportunity, imo. Still, I'll say the same about the column as I did about the call (and a whole lot of my own imperfect efforts): we're all human, we all make mistakes, and we all can stand to improve. Next play.:)

[Clipsfan]

Personally, I distrust technology for the most part. I'm much more likely to trust a guy who is a few feet from the play at looking at the line.



In your opinion. I'm sure you just forgot to add that caveat.

Yes, a still image is always worse than a fleeting impression. And really, do we know that the ref was looking at the line? Refs make bad calls all the time due to bad angles etc, which is why they tend not to make really close calls 70' from the basket with .1 seconds left that decide a game.

As for the article, I agree with both sides of the argument:

1) commentators often jump on something and find it easier to continue to shovel rather than retract it (even when it's as obvious as a player's name)

2) it would be nice to hear more about the ref's side of things rather than just get another opinion about the commentators (we tend to agree that they suck)

Also, it appears that Hess was officiating the UNC game tonight.

[feldspar]

they (sic) tend not to make really close calls 70' from the basket with .1 seconds left that decide a game.

Which is why this play, and the fact that the ref DID blow his whistle, should catch your attention.

[feldspar]

My own view is that judgment calls about lines are made all the time, in the heat of the moment, and often incorrectly. Was that toe on the edge of the three point line or not? Was the ball advanced past the halfcourt line just in time or just too late? Was the shooter still touching it as the shotclock expired, or had it just lost contact?

All I can tell you is that I have never met a quality official who calls the game this way. Violations are violations no matter the circumstances. So much so, in fact, that in college basketball, officials are given the discretion to go to video replay to determine if a foot was on the line for a 3-point play.

Is your opinion based on anything in particular? Perhaps a certain play or botched call?


And where were that player's feet while I was watching his hands to see if he beat the shotclock?

This one's not as hard as you would think. There is plenty of time to look at the player's feet, then look up at his hands before he releases the ball. And, in those rare cases when you can't tell, you have your partners to fall back on and, worse comes to worse, video replay in college ball.

[SilkyJ]

I can totally respect that point of view. My own view is that judgment calls about lines are made all the time, in the heat of the moment, and often incorrectly. Was that toe on the edge of the three point line or not? Was the ball advanced past the halfcourt line just in time or just too late? Was the shooter still touching it as the shotclock expired, or had it just lost contact? And where were that player's feet while I was watching his hands to see if he beat the shotclock?

Those are different types of judgement calls. The ref doesn't "interpret" line calls. Meaning, with a foul the ref will say to himself "well he bumped him, but BARELY, and it shouldn't decide the game". The ref doesn't say well "he was on the line, but BARELY" Either he was on the line or he wasn't. Or like I said, either the ref SAW him on the line, or SAW the ball leave his hands or he didn't. Yes, sometimes its very, very, very close but either you SEE him on the line or you DIDN'T see him on the line.

Kind of like in tennis, as I run for a ball I may have my head down for a split second and the ball may look like it went out of bounds, but I wasn't looking or didn't get a clear look, then I play-on and don't call it OOB b/c I didn't SEE it go out.



Here, a slight bump that NEVER would have been called in isolation was accompanied by a potential toenail on the sideline (maybe, despite there being NO video evidence that he was). No advantage was gained (in football they'd call that "offsetting penalties"),

Don't mean to pick on you, but no, they wouldn't call that offsetting penalties in football. Thats a poor analogy. Off setting penalities requires two players on opposite teams committing fouls/breaking rules on the same play. In this case, one player on one team fouled another. The was no foul/breaking of rules by the other team.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Is your opinion based on anything in particular? Perhaps a certain play or botched call?

First off, thanks to SilkyJ for bringing his thread back up. When I logged on it had moved beyond page 1 and I would otherwise have completely missed both of your thoughtful and temperate responses. I'm glad to see such discussion in what others have made into a shouting match.

Anyway, my opinion is probably based more on my worldview (uncertain, marked by human fallibility) than on any specific play from the past. I simply don't believe that officials get 100% of the calls correct, or even 100% of the line calls. I suspect that Dukerati's trap/force out scenario is a great example of times where a foot often brushes past the line without a whistle, especially where there isn't a good sightline to the foot since 2-3 players are blocking the view. Similarly, in a split second, whether a black shoe touched or was just contiguous with a black three point line is uncertain enough to make it, in my mind, a judgment call. The official can't be sure based on a half-second impression, so s/he uses best judgment based on other factors (prior/post position of the foot, etc, etc.)

For the immediate play, given that Zapruder-level analysis of this play never confirmed the official's call, he couldn't have been very sure the player was out, (or if he was sure he was wrong to be so). Since he wasn't (or shouldn't have been) certain, I don't think it was appropriate to blow the whistle. I also take from the universal shock and outrage that, whether or not it was the correct call, it was a very, very, VERY unusual one. Maybe there just hasn't been a play like this in the last 2-3 decades, but I find that unlikely.

Still, even though I'm not convinced that this was the correct call under the circumstances, I appreciate your attempts to explain why you feel it is. I really have no stake in the outcome of the game and, at the end of the day, how a college basketball game ends up is a pretty trivial matter. My main concern was that a column I was really looking forward to as a chance to get some insight into how officials think and operate was instead used as a bully pulpit about an issue that was unrelated to officiating and about which the commentator had no special insight or expertise.

[Dukerati]

[QUOTE=Dukerati;101738]
Do you suggest stopping the game for extensive replays of every close out-of-bounds play? The official was right on top of the play. YOu can't have officials second guessing ther calls in an instatnt becasue they are wroried that technology might show they were wrng. Even the NFL takes the position that the official's call stands unless there is clear evidence to overrule it. In this case the foot was so clsoe to the line that even under NFL rules the call probably wouldh ave stood.

The defender was the one who made a bone-headed decision, not the official. Riding a ball handler that closely, 70 feet from the basket, with virtually no time left in the game, could only accomplish one thing - picking up a stupid foul.

I wanted to quote both Feldspar and Allenmurray but do not have the proficiency yet with the new message board to do so.

To respond to Feldspar and Allenmurray's points, I am a big believer in technology for judging accuracy because human error is a lot more variable and a lot less precise. You can trust a guy who is running and looking at a line from a few feet away but I tend to trust the slow-motion, blow up, and multiple camera angles.

I am sure the official is tremendous in what he does but that doesn't mean he can't make a mistake. And before people start getting the wrong idea, I do NOT think we should use technology more. I don't want robots replacing refs or have clock stoppage for reviews every time there is a debatable call. The refs do a good job for the most part. In this particular instance, I believe the ref blew the call. Bad calls are a part of the game and to me, it was a bad call.

As for the parallels to football, I personally believe had a player been ruled out of bounds, the replays would have to show that he definitively stepped out of bounds. If there is obstruction or no good camera angle for it, the call can and should stand.

The Villanova player made a stupid play. I do not think anyone is applauding his defense. But was it stupid enough to get a foul called? In my opinion, no. And obviously a foul is not the only thing that could happen. A missed, somewhat contested shot would be the objective for such a move.

[SilkyJ]

I would love an answer to a play that still haunts me.

Bruce Benedict (that's not you is it?) caught he$$ from Meek (?) for a failure to call a admitted tackle of Boozer (or was it Shelden?) at the end of an NCAA game. He rebounded a missed free throw, down one, and was trying to put it in when he had a WWF move put on him.

To compound the problem, we were penalized for Meek's tirade (probably the right response to a big wrong - but that does not help the story).

Pardon my poor memory of this specific instance (help!), but it would be nice to know what officials are thinking the last 5 seconds of a big game.

Welcome, and I loved your perspective on the unfortunate Georgetown win.

So I believe you are talking about the '02 sweet 16 game vs indi "we didn't call him 5 thousand times" ana where boozer was mugged on Jwill's missed FT.

The player who freaked out at the refs was Matt "The Monster's out of the Cage" Christensen.


First off, thanks to SilkyJ for bringing his thread back up. When I logged on it had moved beyond page 1 and I would otherwise have completely missed both of your thoughtful and temperate responses. I'm glad to see such discussion in what others have made into a shouting match.

Anyway, my opinion is probably based more on my worldview (uncertain, marked by human fallibility) than on any specific play from the past. I simply don't believe that officials get 100% of the calls correct, or even 100% of the line calls. I suspect that Dukerati's trap/force out scenario is a great example of times where a foot often brushes past the line without a whistle, especially where there isn't a good sightline to the foot since 2-3 players are blocking the view. Similarly, in a split second, whether a black shoe touched or was just contiguous with a black three point line is uncertain enough to make it, in my mind, a judgment call. The official can't be sure based on a half-second impression, so s/he uses best judgment based on other factors (prior/post position of the foot, etc, etc.)


You are most welcome. I wanted to see what your response was after my posting yesterday so I went and found the thread! I too have enjoyed this discussion.

As tot he 2nd paragraph, I hope you realize that I agree with you in that the refs are not going to get 100% of the line calls right, but basically, they have to call it how they see it. Either they saw the foot on the line, or didn't see it on the line. Sometimes you aren't sure, and in that case I would basically defer and not call it.


[QUOTE=allenmurray;101748]
I wanted to quote both Feldspar and Allenmurray but do not have the proficiency yet with the new message board to do so.


Took me a while too. What you do is login at the top right of the browser before you start reading threads or clicking "reply" or "quote" to respond to someone. If you do that, then you go read a post and in the bottom right of each post there will be three buttons: the first one, the biggest says "Quote" the 2nd one has a "+" sign and quotation marks. That is what you want. Its called the "multiquote" button. Click on that for whichever posts you want to quote in your reply, then when you are done you click "Post reply" in the bottom left of the thread and then all those posts will be inserted as "quotes" in the next page you open. And you can quote as many as you like...or at least I've never reached the maximum and ive probably quoted up to 10 people in one post...

I'm a big fan of it b/c I often can't read during the day anymore and end up responding to an snipits of an entire 2-3 page thread in one post at the end of the day.

Go Duke! Beat the twerps!

[Indoor66]

Took me a while too. What you do is login at the top right of the browser before you start reading threads or clicking "reply" or "quote" to respond to someone. If you do that, then you go read a post and in the bottom right of each post there will be three buttons: the first one, the biggest says "Quote" the 2nd one has a "+" sign and quotation marks. That is what you want. Its called the "multiquote" button. Click on that for whichever posts you want to quote in your reply, then when you are done you click "Post reply" in the bottom left of the thread and then all those posts will be inserted as "quotes" in the next page you open. And you can quote as many as you like...or at least I've never reached the maximum and ive probably quoted up to 10 people in one post...

I'm a big fan of it b/c I often can't read during the day anymore and end up responding to an snipits of an entire 2-3 page thread in one post at the end of the day.

Go Duke! Beat the twerps!

Way to complex for an old curmudgeon like me. :confused:

[feldspar]

For the immediate play, given that Zapruder-level analysis of this play never confirmed the official's call, he couldn't have been very sure the player was out, (or if he was sure he was wrong to be so). Since he wasn't (or shouldn't have been) certain,

I'm sorry, but I just can't let this go.

You don't know that the official wasn't certain he stepped out of bounds, unless you ask him. No matter how many camera angles you refer to, none of them mean a hill of beans. Only one set of eyes in this case make any sort of difference.

You have no basis for insinuating that the official did not see the player step out of bounds. I, other posters, and The Playcaller, are basing our assumption that the did step out of bounds on the fact that an unusual foul was called with .1 seconds on the clock.

In summary, you're relying on replay video and commentators who routinely spout off incorrect information about officiating to back up our assumptions, we're relying on a man on the ground with years of officiating experience who is now being backed up by the head of officials over the entire NCAA. I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions from that.

[feldspar]

You know, when it all comes down to it, my view can be boiled down to this:

Unless, to the naked eye, it's pretty apparent that an official blew a call, I'm almost always going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It seems to me from observation that most (ie, 6 or 7 out of 10) basketball fans do the exact opposite.

[Indoor66]

You know, when it all comes down to it, my view can be boiled down to this:

Unless, to the naked eye, it's pretty apparent that an official blew a call, I'm almost always going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It seems to me from observation that most (ie, 6 or 7 out of 10) basketball fans do the exact opposite.

I agree with your approach, felds; and if you look a most replays, the refs are usually correct.

[feldspar]

I agree with your approach, felds; and if you look a most replays, the refs are usually correct.

The other thing that sucks about instant replay is slo-mo instant replay.

Take the Georgetown-Vandy NCAA Tourney game last year where Green supposedly traveled.

Replays showed that the travel that everyone THOUGHT they saw didn't happen, but they also revealed (as someone here pointed out...was it greybeard??) that Green did technically travel before the "supposed" travel. But it was so quick and so small that no ref without super slow-mo Superman vision would have been reasonably expected to catch it.

Slow-mo replay is good for entertainment, but only makes these kinds of discussions more cloudy and difficult.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

You know, when it all comes down to it, my view can be boiled down to this:

Unless, to the naked eye, it's pretty apparent that an official blew a call, I'm almost always going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It seems to me from observation that most (ie, 6 or 7 out of 10) basketball fans do the exact opposite.

To hit both of your posts, I agree completely with your analysis of our differences. You have made it clear that, unless there is overwhelming evidence, you are backing the official. Since you are an official yourself, I totally respect that.

You've also said that you trust the subjective, split-second call of a person over the objective view of the camera which can be reviewed, seen from different angles, slowed down, etc. I think this is where we really part company. Officials are human beings who make mistakes. The camera never lies. If a call goes one way and video evidence reveals that it was wrong, I just can't get my head around siding with the person and not the video.

Anyway, it's been illuminating to have this discussion, and I really appreciate your insight and friendly tone. Now let's get on to the real business of the day: celebrating a HUGE win over Garyland. :D

[TillyGalore]

You've also said that you trust the subjective, split-second call of a person over the objective view of the camera which can be reviewed, seen from different angles, slowed down, etc. I think this is where we really part company. Officials are human beings who make mistakes. The camera never lies. If a call goes one way and video evidence reveals that it was wrong, I just can't get my head around siding with the person and not the video.

I agree that the camera never lies. I also agree that officials are human and therefore make mistakes. But, how often does the camera have the EXACT same angle as the official? This is why we should defer to the official because he/she likely saw something we didn't.

[feldspar]

Anyway, it's been illuminating to have this discussion, and I really appreciate your insight and friendly tone. Now let's get on to the real business of the day: celebrating a HUGE win over Garyland. :D

Thanks. I've been trying to be less cantankerous lately. Being 10-0 in the conference certainly helps. :)

[calltheobvious]

Thanks. I've been trying to be less cantankerous lately. Being 10-0 in the conference certainly helps. :)

He's also been doing his daily Jimmy V devotional. Before checking this thread daily, he goes through three incantations of "Don't give up...don't ever give up."

[Clipsfan]

Which is why this play, and the fact that the ref DID blow his whistle, should catch your attention.

I don't know why you felt the need to edit my quote (by adding sic). It does make me wonder what else you edit in other people's quotes.

As for my quote, yes, I did say "they" because the antecedent is plural (refs). Thanks for playing.

[Clipsfan]

I agree that the camera never lies. I also agree that officials are human and therefore make mistakes. But, how often does the camera have the EXACT same angle as the official? This is why we should defer to the official because he/she likely saw something we didn't.

You neglect that the officials have to make a quick decision without full information. The replays provide both more information (more angles) and the time to truly interpret what happened. Officials don't always make the right call, but given the circumstances they tend to do fairly well. I still wouldn't assume that their call is the right one (i.e. defer to them) simply because they are the official.

[Clipsfan]

You know, when it all comes down to it, my view can be boiled down to this:

Unless, to the naked eye, it's pretty apparent that an official blew a call, I'm almost always going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It seems to me from observation that most (ie, 6 or 7 out of 10) basketball fans do the exact opposite.

I can actually agree with you here. The question isn't whether the official made the 100% correct call, as that might be hard to do considering the all the factors (angle, timing etc). To me, the question is whether they made the best call given those circumstances. Sure, replay may show that the call was incorrect, but at full speed and without benefit of replay it may have appeared to be the right call. As long as they're trying to make the right call, that's what is important.

Sometimes I don't think that they're trying to make the right call. Paparo comes to mind.

[allenmurray]

Officials are human beings who make mistakes. The camera never lies. If a call goes one way and video evidence reveals that it was wrong, I just can't get my head around siding with the person and not the video.


Stop play after every official's call and review the video. It would probbly add only 2 hours or so to each game.

[FishStick]

Hey guys,

One question about reffing since everyone has reached happy agreements on the previous subject. Is it just me or are fould much more common on shots than rebounds? It really bothers me that players seem to abuse eachother on an offensive rebound but when the follow shot goes up a foul is called with what looks like pretty incidental contact. The more misses and offensive rebounds, the more likely a shooting foul will be called. Is there more leeway for players during rebounds than shooting or is shooting simply easier to ascribe to the defender?

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Stop play after every official's call and review the video. It would probbly add only 2 hours or so to each game.

Oh, I absolutely understand why we rely on the imperfect system of human officials rather than some Officialtron 3000 ("Don't praise the machine"). The inefficiency you allude to is a necessary imperfection of the game, however, not a good thing. And when a close call is controversial video evidence gives us, imo, a better vantage point than the person who had a split-second to make the call had.

Whether and how we institute some form of instant replay is tangential to the issue of whether you defer to the official or base your armchair discussion of a call on the best evidence available. I completely understand how bad calls can get made by talented, hardworking officials with the best intentions. I just don't think that changes the fact that they are bad calls.

[hughgs]

... video evidence gives us, imo, a better vantage point than the person who had a split-second to make the call had.

This is where your argument falls apart. It would be impossible to guarantee that any machine would have a better vantage point than the properly positioned person. The game being discussed is one example. You have yet to show that the replays had a better vantage point and therefore could be used to make a better call. Just because the replay doesn't show something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

This is where your argument falls apart. It would be impossible to guarantee that any machine would have a better vantage point than the properly positioned person. The game being discussed is one example. You have yet to show that the replays had a better vantage point and therefore could be used to make a better call. Just because the replay doesn't show something doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

We've been over this a few times in the thread (see Clipsfan's discussion posted at 1:15) and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else. You trust a subjective human view made with a fraction of a second who also has to be conscious of 10 players, the clock, the coaches, etc. I trust the numerous objective camera angles which give us the ability to freeze, slow down, compare multiple angles, and review at our leisure. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

[darthur]

We've been over this a few times in the thread (see Clipsfan's discussion posted at 1:15) and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else. You trust a subjective human view made with a fraction of a second who also has to be conscious of 10 players, the clock, the coaches, etc. I trust the numerous objective camera angles which give us the ability to freeze, slow down, compare multiple angles, and review at our leisure.

Yep, that's a nice, unbiased description of the argument you are having with him.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Thanks. That's what I was going for.

[hughgs]

We've been over this a few times in the thread (see Clipsfan's discussion posted at 1:15) and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else. You trust a subjective human view made with a fraction of a second who also has to be conscious of 10 players, the clock, the coaches, etc. I trust the numerous objective camera angles which give us the ability to freeze, slow down, compare multiple angles, and review at our leisure. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

I didn't say I didn't trust the camera or that I trusted the human view, just that your argument that the camera always has a better vantage point is wrong. I completely agree that the different views can give you more information, but the key is whether the camera has a better vantage point than the ref. You explicitly said in your previous post that the camera has a better vantage point than the ref and I'm pointing out that your assumption is wrong.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I didn't say I didn't trust the camera or that I trusted the human view, just that your argument that the camera always has a better vantage point is wrong. I completely agree that the different views can give you more information, but the key is whether the camera has a better vantage point than the ref. You explicitly said in your previous post that the camera has a better vantage point than the ref and I'm pointing out that your assumption is wrong.

Ah. I can see where the disconnect is then. I was mainly addressing Feldspar's statement that "Personally, I distrust technology for the most part. I'm much more likely to trust a guy who is a few feet from the play at looking at the line" and attempting to answer Feldspar's question as to why I generally do trust technology rather than human perception. When in doubt I trust the camera. When in doubt Feldspar (and you, I assume) trust the person. There's room in the world for both of us.

[calltheobvious]

We've been over this a few times in the thread (see Clipsfan's discussion posted at 1:15) and I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else. You trust a subjective human view made with a fraction of a second who also has to be conscious of 10 players, the clock, the coaches, etc. I trust the numerous objective camera angles which give us the ability to freeze, slow down, compare multiple angles, and review at our leisure. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

At any one moment, no individual official is responsible for nearly as many things as you list.

[hughgs]

Ah. I can see where the disconnect is then. I was mainly addressing Feldspar's statement that "Personally, I distrust technology for the most part. I'm much more likely to trust a guy who is a few feet from the play at looking at the line" and attempting to answer Feldspar's question as to why I generally do trust technology rather than human perception. When in doubt I trust the camera. When in doubt Feldspar (and you, I assume) trust the person. There's room in the world for both of us.

You're putting words in my mouth. At no time did I state that when in doubt that I trust the person. And I'm willing to bet that Feldspar's argument follows mine. That technology can only give you more information, but rarely (in basketball) does it have a better vantage point than the ref. Hence, one must count on the ref to make the correct call. If you're ever been a referee for a sport that requires calling in versus out you'll understand.

My question to you would be how you would change things to handle to out-of-bounds situation that's being discussed. If you're going to make the argument that it should've gone to the camera then I think you need to show us how the camera had a better angle than the ref.

[feldspar]

You're putting words in my mouth. At no time did I state that when in doubt that I trust the person. And I'm willing to bet that Feldspar's argument follows mine. That technology can only give you more information, but rarely (in basketball) does it have a better vantage point than the ref. Hence, one must count on the ref to make the correct call. If you're ever been a referee for a sport that requires calling in versus out you'll understand.

My question to you would be how you would change things to handle to out-of-bounds situation that's being discussed. If you're going to make the argument that it should've gone to the camera then I think you need to show us how the camera had a better angle than the ref.

I agree with you, but I'll also add the caveat that this whole discussion, in my opinion, is pointless. Technology has grown by leaps and bounds even in the last 10 years, and we still use humans to officiate sports contests. I don't see it ever changing, no matter how much people who don't understand officiating--and are thus routinely ticked off by "bad calls" such as GU/NOVA-- clamor for it.

Another way to explain it, DevilCastDownfromDurham, is, in order to satisfy your trust of technology over humans, why don't we just put the three guys in stripes up in a booth with all the replay, zoom, slow-mo equipment imaginable. Let's say that money is not an issue. Would you prefer that over human beings on the floor, as close as you can possibly get to the play?

[SilkyJ]

Way to complex for an old curmudgeon like me. :confused:

let me try it again. Login before you post/read threads by going to the login at the top right of your browser page.

Then when you want to quote someone, look at the button directly to the right of the "quote" button. click that on each post you want to quote, and then go to the bottom left of the browser and click post reply.

[Taco]

Still waiting to hear why t-ing up DeMarcus was such a great call http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2488/emotcolbertsg7.gif

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

First off, hughgs, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I quoted Feldspar directly and was primarily responding to that point. To the extent that you differ, I don't mean to lump you together.


Another way to explain it, DevilCastDownfromDurham, is, in order to satisfy your trust of technology over humans, why don't we just put the three guys in stripes up in a booth with all the replay, zoom, slow-mo equipment imaginable. Let's say that money is not an issue. Would you prefer that over human beings on the floor, as close as you can possibly get to the play?

We've wandered pretty far from the original issue (was the column enjoyable), but I'll take a stab at this one. The main issue with technology today is the delay factor that allenmurray alluded to. If there was some sort of instant response version, perhaps like in tennis for the lines, I'd 100% prefer it over humans. Machines aren't distracted by crowd reaction, other players, indigestion, and the myriad of other things that all people are subject to. They also (as I understand your hypo) get multiple angles on a play, can zoom in to see detail, and perhaps most importantly, can take the time to assess and review a situation, rather than being forced to make a snap judgment in the heat of the moment.

Of course we have no technology like that, so we instead have hard working, knowledgeable and good people who do the best job they can. Naturally they make mistakes, but we live with that since they are human beings. Sort of like J.J.'s shooting, it ain't perfect, but it's the best we have and you live with the misses since he hits so often.

Returning to the play that started the discussion (or rather prompted the column that started this discussion), I can live with the call. Like a J.J. miss, it's the cost of using the best system we have for in game calls. The next morning, when we're discussing whether or not it was the right call, however, I'll take the slo-mo/every angle look over the split-second "one camera" impression every time. Proximity is, to my mind, much less important than perspective (many angles) and time to review. Since every camera indicated that this was, at best a VERY close call, the official either was incorrect (i.e. thought this was an easy call which was shown to be incorrect by the replay) or recognized that it was a very close call, but trusted that split-second impression enough to blow the whistle with that time and in that spot. I recognize (sort of) why an official would do that, but I don't agree with it.

[feldspar]

Since every camera indicated that this was, at best a VERY close call, the official either was incorrect (i.e. thought this was an easy call which was shown to be incorrect by the replay) or recognized that it was a very close call, but trusted that split-second impression enough to blow the whistle with that time and in that spot. I recognize (sort of) why an official would do that, but I don't agree with it.

Once again, you're assuming that the cameras, whatever their angle, had a better view than the official. I really disagree with that.

Second, I disagree with your use of the term "impression." If the official literally saw the player's foot on the line, I don't consider that an "impression." I consider that knowledge.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Once again, you're assuming that the cameras, whatever their angle, had a better view than the official. I really disagree with that.

Second, I disagree with your use of the term "impression." If the official literally saw the player's foot on the line, I don't consider that an "impression." I consider that knowledge.

And I think those two disagreements really define our different takes on that foul call. Not sure either of us is going to persuade the other, but it's neat to see where our respective perspectives (try saying that mouthful three times fast :) ) come from.

[mapei]

I really hate where replay cameras and announcers' second-guessing has taken us. Officiating has now become what people watch and remember rather than sport. It's ridiculous.

I would much rather live with human error and get on with the game.

[feldspar]

And I think those two disagreements really define our different takes on that foul call. Not sure either of us is going to persuade the other, but it's neat to see where our respective perspectives (try saying that mouthful three times fast :) ) come from.

Good enough. I think we're definitely at the "agree to disagree" stage.

I enjoyed the discussion.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Good enough. I think we're definitely at the "agree to disagree" stage.

I enjoyed the discussion.

Agreed. I enjoyed it as well.:)