You are right rich, I can't prove it.
I can only base my opinion on what I see. I see high profile players getting calls that the average joe doesn't get.

SDS,

Sorry for the spelling error. I don't dislike him, think he is an awesome player.
I just think he gets calls that the average joe doesn't.
Jordan got calls too!

I happens in baseball too. Any sport, really. Except golf. Some pitchers get better corners than say a rookie might get, based on reputation and seniority. It's not right, but that's the way it is, and is an accepted part of the game.

I would love to see the Celtics and Lakers go toe-to-toe in the finals!:cool:

And your Padres drool.....................:D


Tim.

There are times you do not call what you saw. The truely great officials of any sport can do this.

I know that I have "seen" things that did not actually happen. I have "seen" things not happen that actually did happen. A great official can know what he saw and use that information to find out what actually happened. What actually happened may not be what you actually saw (most notably in basketball when a lot of calls are made without a steady base).

I'll give you an example. Had a call in a 15U game a couple months ago. I move to 1BLX for what I think will be a banger at the front edge of the plate. The throw came up the line, and I got caught out of position. The runner tried to avoid the catchers tag by running to the pitcher's mound side and stepping in to the plate. The catcher easily had the ball and was going to make an easy tag. As the runner passed the catcher, his hands came down (to where I could no longer see them) in a non-running motion. They came down quickly, right into the area the tag was going to be applied. 2 open hands. And then I saw the glove and the ball on the ground.

Now, did I see the INT? Nope. Did it happen. Yes. Did I call it. Yes. Very bold call, met with much aggravation from the offensive manager.

After talking with BU in the parking lot, he said it was obvious, and I got the call right.

Now, the opposite logic... had a play that I saw perfectly and passed on a call, because I had doubts whether it really happened. I'm PU, runner rounding 3rd. Coach puts up the stop sign, and reaches out and, from what I could tell, physically assisted the runner to stop and get back to 3rd. Now, that's what I saw. But I passed on the call. Why? Because a) I had this coach for many games and he's not an idiot b) There was no play anywhere on this runner and no reason for the coach to do this and most importantly c) I realized that what I saw might not have actually happened.

Asked BU about it in the parking lot, said that the coach absolutely did not touch that kid. He had the line of sight where he could "see through the play" where I was straight-lined. If I had called what I had saw I would have been dead wrong.

So, you can't always call what you see. And you can't ignore what you don't see. You have to use what you see to help you figure out what really happened. 90% of the information we gain comes through our eyes. The other 10% comes through our other senses (hearing definitely), our logic, our anticipation and readiness for a play, our understanding of call sustainability and the limitations of the position we were in to officiate that play, and a degree of common sense.

I might have just confused myself :confused: If this makes any sense please let me know so I can pat myself on the back.

Yes, they drool while they suck, and that's annoying!:rolleyes:

Did it ever occur to you that the best players get calls because they are the better players that know how to earn a call? For example when you shoot 30 times a game and you are going to the basket, it only makes sense that you are going to go to the line more. But the funny thing as Rich said, Kobe went to the line 1 time last night, but did not go the line at all in Game 3 and he scored 28 points as well.

Also if you look at most stats, players like Kobe foul other players more as well. But that is never talked about with the sports commentators that know little or nothing about officiating or what goes into it. If you listen to commentators, why did the Spurs not get the call at home? I thought the home team always got the breaks from the officials, right?

Peace

A while back I did a game in American Legion ball, it was the bot of the 7th, home team down by 1 run, with 2 outs and the final play of the game took place at the plate with the runner lowering his shoulder on the catcher, trying to score. My call, malicious contact runner out, out of the game, game over. Was it the call the home team wanted? No. Was it the right call? Yes

I once called a penalty shot at the buzzer of the final period of a hockey game. The player went on to score and win the game for his team. Was it the call the home team wanted? No. But again it was the right call.

Both times my partners stated they didn't know if they would have ended the game that way and I replied that if you didn't have the guts to make the right call at that point of the contest, you shouldn't be an official.

I don't believe there should be ANY hesitancy on the part of a good official in making a game ending decision if they are confident that it was the right call.
For those that believe otherwise, well you just shouldn't be an official.

If you don't see the play, or you see something that didn't happen, then you're simply out of position.

That's a problem.


Lucky call. One of these days the ball might simply drop out of the glove, and you'll be calling an interference that didn't occur and that you didn't see.

Don't let the coach's IQ influence your "judgment".

Assumption is an umpire's worst enemy.

If you can't trust your own eyesight, maybe it's time for a new avocation?

Better not pat yourself on the back, because your methods of making calls just aren't going to cut it.

Obviously the officials had something to prove. :eek:

Fwiw, Pete, the NBE has issued a press release saying that a foul <b>should</b> have been called on that play. The foul was before the shot, so Barry shoulda had 2 free throws and the chance to tie the game.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baske...55548122_x.htm

That must have made Joey Crawford happy as hell.:D

I'll make sure not to take that advice canada - thanks.

No matter how good of an official you are, there will be times when a play flops on you and you won't have a good look at it. Baseball, basketball, hockey, who knows maybe track and field. It happened to me, so I shared the story. I would have a very difficult time believing that it hasn't happened to every member on this board (a play happens where you get straightlined, even if you still make the right call).

Last year, I'm in B. R1 and R3, 1 out. R1 steals, I'm ready for the out call at second. Tag comes down, looking good, fielder rises, pivots to throw home (right handed thrower) and I get caught staring right at his back. Ball came out as he turned. Transfer? Hell if I know, I was staring at his back. Was in perfect position to umpire the play and ended up out of position for the next play. Not a damn thing any umpire could have done in that spot (except be in C, which is a different debate). But, perhaps you understand my point.

You must realize the limitations our avocation provides us with (among other things) before becoming a great official. It is something that I am working on now.

You say don't assume - well you're assuming that what you saw is actually what happened every time... our whole profession is based off assumption of all the information intake we go through.

Listen, in baseball, you can get a long ways in calling what you see. Not as much of the case in basketball. But in any sport, the official must realize that there will always be a difference between what is seen and what happened. The human eye has a specific refresh rate (I have heard somewhere between 60-120 frames per second can be processed). Now, how many frames does the action have that we are observing. Infinity. Yes, we are talking milliseconds here. But if the clouds come out, if a bird flies in the background of your vision, anything!, your vision is compromised. The human eye has many short-comings. Pretty remarkable it doesn't have more, if you ask me.

By our very nature, there is a gap between what we perceive and what really happened. It is very small, but it exists. Knowing when what we see is in that gap can be a valuable tool an official can use.

And I don't guess at calls, I use all information readily available to me in order to ASSUME what happened. Not just eye sight. You've got to be kidding if you think all umpires use are the eyes.

I think Guccione would agree ;)

No more speeches from me to you on this topic because it is clear I'm your new Garth (not flattering myself). Gotta have at least one enemy I suppose, eh?

Why the league did this I'll never know. Even the Spurs agreed (at least publically) that it should have been a no-call. Why stir up controversy when none exists?

Boy, that Joey sure does hate them Spurs! ;)

Get well to his brother though.

"60% of the time, it works every time." ;)

I disagree with your statement as evidenced in the balk call about 2-3 yrs ago that ended a College World Series Game. If memory serves there was bases loaded meaning runners were going no-where. No advantage gained by the defense for F1 not pausing / stopping which was borderline at best yet the balk call was made.

I believe this type of scenario is also commented on in Papa C's 51 ways to ruin a baseball game.

There are infractions of rules and there are Infractions of rules if you get my gist.

I was doing a tournament game this past weekend. I was BU, F1 did not stop. I also noticed R1 was going no-where so after the play I called TIME and turned towards F6 make believe I was clearing dust out of my eye and said to F6 Go talk to your F1. The coaches knew what i wa doing and had no problem with it.

Therefore, that is the premise for my post as was the case in the Spurs / Lakers game.

There was a Foul committed (The NBA admitted it see Jerassic's post) but was it the type of Foul to end the game. That is what my OP is all about.

There is a philosophy among some officials and also has stood the test of time.

Let the players decide the outcome.

Pete Booth