Sat Jul 04, 2009, 09:47am
|
Esteemed Participant
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
Frankly, I'm with Emerson.
Consistency in itself has no value, or else a game that started with a couple bad calls would have to be called badly throughout. Sorry California: not a virtue at all, much less the highest one.
So what distinguishes a "foolish consistency" from whatever it is about consistency that people admire? Not making the same call, but making the right call in each case.
I think that rookies and sometimes those who teach them seek a simple formula for officiating. But the reason that no simple formula is forthcoming is that good officiating is making the right call in each case. And doing that requires experience, since we have to factor in that cool list BITS mentioned in his first post of the thread: "age, skill, size, ability, mismatch, [player] experience, score, 'temperature', time on the clock, foul count, time of the season, and other factors." That last one is a kicker, too.
And, given how the game is actually officiated, each of those is sometimes relevant. Judging when and how much is extraordinarily complicated and not algorithmic: a computer could never be programmed to officiate for this reason (and computational models of mind are misguided for the same reason -- but I digress!). And on top of the complexity of information needed in each judgment situation, the call must be made fast. Fast and right is a tall order.
My conclusion is that consistency in itself has little value: what's valuable is an official's capacity to make the right call. If officials can do that every time, great, but we'll take what we can get.
|
Very well said, mbyron!
In my experience, "consistency" is a word used by 1) a coach who really has nothing else to gripe about because the game is being called well so he/she starts yelling about "being consistent", or 2) an assignor/supervisor/coordinator who really has nothing else to talk to you about because the game was called well so he/she uses "consistency" to prove that you have something you "need to work on".
|