Calls that may end a game
 

Hi all:

Do not know how many of you are NBA fans but last nights game between the Spurs / Lakers is the premise for my post.

At the end of the game the Spurs Brent Barry attempted a 3 point shot. He at first faked the shot and got the Lakers Derek Fisher airborn but instead of following through with the shot Barry went to the side. There was definitely contact and most of the analysts agreed it was a Foul but not something that should be called to possibly end the game. (Barry would have had 3 free throws)

About 2-3 yrs ago there was a contoversial balk call to end a college world series game. It centered around F1 not coming to a stop/pause.

So my question?

As baseball officials will you overlook something (Excluded in this is balls / strikes) if it's a game ender as Joey Crawford did in last night NBA game.

here is an example:

R2 base hit to right field. 3rd base coach waves R2 home. F2 is just about to receive the ball (ie' the ball is right near home plate and F2 is ready to catch it on the bounce) and blocks the plate as R2 comes sliding in and F2 tags the runner for out number 3.

According to the new rules this is OBS, however, is it a BLATANT OBS in which to end the game on?

In a nutshell what's your philiosphy on a game ending call.

Pete Booth

Obstruction in the first inning should be called the same as obstruction in the last inning. Make the CORRECT call, and get ready for a coach to come unglued.

Officiating Philosophy
 

All of us have our own philosophy.
1. Get the call right no matter what.
2. Call the way the assigner/league/commission dictates.
3. Make the expected call in the expected situation.
4. Apply the spirit of the rule and know the letter of the rule.
5. Get even with that coach/batter/player because he just showed me up.
6. That team is too stupid to live much less benefit from my call.
7. This game is out of hand, lets get it over.

I am sure you can add more.

I try to get the call right most of the time but sometimes a few of the other reasons get in the way of my philosophy.

Some sort of call ends EVERY game.
Watch what happens and apply the rules. Our job is not defined by the situation, it is defined by the rulebook.

Drew Barry was not fouled by Derek Fisher. In fact, if a foul did occur it should have been a foul by Drew Barry. Fisher left the floor and then Barry moved up and under Fisher.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

I agree with what you wrote to an extent, but I would bet my life, that if the roles were reversed and coby bryant was taking that shot, a foul would have been called.

Bryant didn't go to the line once last night and scored 29 points.

I didn't think it was a foul at all. Sports writers and other assorted idiots are not trained basketball officials.

Verticality combined with the ball handler working through the contact. Nothing more. Even the Spurs didn't think it was a foul.

I got the wrong Barry on the court. But I still stand by my observation, no matter which Barry had the ball and made that move. Even my younger son Andy, who isn't a basketball official like MTD, Jr., is called it the same way as I did as soon as he saw the play on SportsCenter this morning. Of course if it had been the 'old man' Rick Barr, he would still be crying in his beer about how he was fouled and it wasn't called.

MTD, Sr.

Rich,

My point is this - In the NBA (Not Basketball ATALL)
Calls are based on the players not the play.

I disagree totally. Players don't get calls in the NBA, officials judge the action and rule accordingly (unless you're Donaghy :p )

Basketball is a different story than baseball. Lots more gray area in basketball... subjective judgment.

If something were to happen like in the OP, I would probably ignore it. Why? Because in the 1st inning, I'm probably ignoring it too if I'm not above 80% sure of my call. I would run down the call through a checklist, and if it can't pass call sustainability, I'm not calling it. Will I be able to sustain that level of call throughout the game? This principle is used primarily in basketball, but at times, perhaps we can use the same philosophy.

Another way to think about it. Lets say that exact play happens 3 times in the game. I'm 60% OBS on each one. If I call OBS on every one, there is only a 21% chance I got them all right...

Plays like the one above, there is no call until proven otherwise. If I am sure I have an OBS in the bottom of the 7th, I'll take it, but if I'm not sure, I'll pass on it.

Just my .02.

Well, I gotta disagree completely with that. I've been officiating basketball for nigh on 50 years....and I don't have a clue as to what constitutes a "foul" in the NBE(the WWE with a ball). There just ain't no rhyme nor reason, or any consistency involved anymore either imo. You can apply that statement to violations like traveling and palming also.

The NBE is entertainment oriented, not sports oriented <i>per se</i>, and the league is called that way. Hell, the NBE still doesn't know what, if any, bad calls that Donaghy actually made. Their criteria, whatever the hell it is, showed Donaghy as being one of their better and more accurate play callers, even in games that he threw. That ought to tell you something right there. Note that I'm not knocking NBE officials either. They have to be the most scrutinized and over-trained officiating body in the world. Every single call is analyzed and graded, and Big Brother is watching every move. The problem lies with the direction that NBE officials are being given, again imo only. As I said, the NBE is entertainment oriented, and it wants its games officiated that way. If you want to critique the officials, you might just as well critique the guys officiating the Harlem Globetrotters' games also. In both sets of games, the officials are told how they have to call a game. Iow, if you want to watch the NBE and Trotter games for their entertainment value, fine. Just don't take either of them seriously.

The NBE in it's current reincarnation is simply unwatchable anymore, imo only. You've got a ton of players who can't shoot or pass worth a damn, but they can dunk and kick the sh!t out of their opponents(and trash-talk while doing so).

I hate the NBA, but I hate this tiresome, unfounded nonsense even more. Back it up with facts. Hint: You can't.

/thread :cool:

Call it as you see it. Who cares about the score or what inning it is? Adding the element of principle into your calls will make things too complicated, and increase the probability of blowing one.

If you can't spell Kobe's name right, perhaps you shouldn't mention him in your posts. Lakers rule. End of discussion.

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

I''m going to be brutally honest with you, friend. All that you said would be exactly correct if all of our games were called in a vaccum. But seeing as we're not afforded the luxury of calling games that way, there are times when we all have been straight lined, used too quick timing on calls, or incorrectly anticipated where a play would develop, not seeing everything we should have. Our goal every time out should be to eliminate these things from happening to us, but it's unrealistic to think yourself or anyone else beyond these type of mistakes. We're human after all. Since I know for a fact you're not above reproach yourself, you might want to lighten up a bit on how you dole out your advice.............



Tim.

The players decide every game.
No official's call can change that.

If you want to coach players on the rules then coach.
If you are a real umpire then umpire.

The luxury of instant replay!

I've been calling B-Ball for 12 years. When I first saw the play, It didn't appear to be enough contact to call a foul in "that situation". But on the replay he got killed.lol

But come on, he took a dribble and threw up a 38 footer, not a good shot. And even if the foul was called, it would have been on the floor IMO. So we're shooting bonus shots, not 3. (then again, with the NBA's continuation?)

Actually the NBA rule is the same as the NCAA and NF Continuous motion rule. There is nothing special about the NBA rule on shooting.

Peace

I know there is no difference in the rule J, my point was it was not a shooting foul, by rule. Except maybe in the NBA where they might/would have gave him 3 shots if the foul was called.

JMO

I doubt seriously that this would have been called a shooting foul considering that Barry after contact took about 2 dribbles and then put up a shot.

Peace

Tim,

I agree that if we get a bad angle and don't see the play properly, we should use all relevant clues to help us make the most likely call. However, I do not think we should rely on what was "probably the right call" to help us get through games. The only time I will use something other than my eyes to make a call is on a possible hit by pitch, catcher's interference, or foul tip.

Positioning is key to seeing the play properly. If an umpire is in position and still has to look for clues, then something is probably wrong.

What's wrong with being in a perfect position to umpire a play and looking for clues as to what happened?

As PU, you are in perfect position to see a hit batsman. But we don't always know if it happens. Bat comes down and hits dirt, ball bounces off glove, and I can't distinguish a noise. Perhaps the ball hit him, perhaps it didn't. Sensory overload for the PU here. Batter's initial reaction will be a pretty good clue to figure it out and get the call right, among other clues, such as sound, sight, change of direction of the ball. Use all the info you can get.

Pete, I don't at all disagree with you. As with any decision made in a contest, wether during or at the end of the contest, good judgement should be used. Especially by an experienced official such as those in the NBA.

Sometimes the "right call", is, no call at all. However, to be able to discern when that time is, is definitely important and a trait that not all officials poesess. Even in the NBA.

This is the one place I come to when I need some expert advice. I have been reading this board for the past 6 or 7 years now and take alot of what is said here to heart and have adopted most philosophies as my own.

And one of those philosophies has been that we don't make the rules, we enforce them. That we shouldn't take the rules and enforce them as we see fit. That we MUST be consistant as officials to give both sides a fair advantage. To be consistant we MUST enforce the rules in any situation.

What is going on here?

Now we decide when/when not to call a balk?

When to call a foul or not?

OK, I'm done!

Tom, as I stated above sometimes, no call, is the right call, and soemtimes it is not. Experience will tell you when.

In the meantime, I encourage you to stick to your guns and follow what has been working for you.

In about 5 years come back to this thread and tells us if you still feel the same about this.

Good Luck

Tom, that all sounds great, but you commented on a sport you obviously do not understand. Calling a foul in a basketball game is not like calling balk in baseball. And you still have not shown me a rule that suggests would take place in the NBA Playoffs that said there had to be a foul. Calling a balk is a little easier because there are parameters of what can and cannot be done by a pitcher for a balk. Basketball the rules have a lot of caveats to what is a foul and even suggest that if contact does not affect play, it should not be a foul. Well how someone decides what affects play or not is very subjective. And just bumping someone does not mean there has to be a foul in the game of basketball.

Peace

You obviously don't understand who you are talking to!

I have played all my life since I was 9 yrs old and was starting point guard in HS as a senior for a AAAA Section and WPIAL winning team. I have been officiating basketball for over 12 yrs now in Europe and all over the US.

A sport I don't understand, are you kidding me!

Bottom line is, it is "Selective officiating" if you decide what to call and when to call it!

Thanks Jice, I was only playing devils advocate.

Don't tell JRut though!

Look closely at the play-by-play below this box score to see how this game ended:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bo...98607100.shtml

This was 1986 Angles at Red Sox (regular season...not the ALCS). I have seen this game on video several times.

In the top of the 12th, the Angels score three runs. The Sox score 3 in bottom of the 12th (and as you can see...they came with some help from the Angels).

With the winning run on third (Dwight Evans), the Angles' pitcher went to the wind-up. With the ball in the pitcher's glove, the Angles' pitcher slightly moved his pitching hand/arm toward his glove and put it back down. It was a slight movement..to the point where none of the announcers (and I've seen the Red Sox broadcast tape and Angels' tape) saw it live. On replay, you can see the slight movement. And let me make it clear...the pitcher definitely moved his pitching hand. He "started and stopped" (his motion).

I'd like to think I have the guts to make that (or a similar) call...someday I'm sure I'll find out.

(As an aside: It is funny as hell to see these two tapes. The Red Sox broadcasters' think its a great call...the Angels' broadcasters are screaming that it is a bush way to end the game and that the umpires were taking the game out of the players' hands. Sort of a microcosm of this entire thread.)

Once again the last comment proves my point. You have not quoted one rule that suggest that what the officials did in the game was wrong. You are only giving your opinion as to why it was not a foul. It sounds more like you are being selective in how you interpret the rules. If you were standing on solid ground you would quote a single rule. It is not hard to do.

And please do not think anyone is impressed with Feeble officiating. There is a reason why many folks on these boards dismiss officials from other countries. :D

Peace

Who said anything about FIBA? Or feeble as you put it. I just said Europe.

What are you saying, there wasn't a foul?

Even the officials said it was after the game!

Obviously you are commenting on a sport you do not understand.

Are you saying that the NF and NCAA have jurisdiction in Europe? Or better yet are you saying that the NBA has jurisdiction in Europe?

I am saying that there is rules support for there not being a foul. Unlike you I have actually quote rules on why I feel there was not an "obvious foul" as you have indicated it was.

What officials? Some suit from the NBA office? You mean some guy that has never put on a whistle in any kind of game has said there was a foul? Or are you talking about some guy that claims they officiate basketball says it was a foul or is not a foul. There is a difference you know.

You said all levels. If you have been officiating in Europe than you have not been exposed to "all levels" as you have stated. Considering that the vast majority of NBA players and officials come from The United States of America (a place you have never officiated according to your own comments) and come from a high school sports system that I have been exposed to, then I find it difficult to believe you know what happens or is expected in this country.

In my opinion this makes your claims this "was a foul at all levels" as puzzling. Then again, I am still waiting for a single rule to back up your claim that this was a foul and nothing but a foul. If it was selective officiating, then show a rule that suggests the officials did not follow the rules? I know at the NF and NCAA level this play fit clearly as a play that could not be called as a foul. Then again, do not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Peace

But Pete I would also add that one of the marks of a good official in any sport is that he/she looks forward to making calls at the end of the game.

We all know of many officials who call a great 8 innings, or 30 minutes (HS) or 38 minutes (NCAA), but when it gets to crunch time they wilt under the pressure.

One of the things that I was told a long time ago by a very good veteran official, in the last minutes, inning, "make sure about the call."

At first I didn't understand what he was talking about, but now some 30 years later it makes a lot of sense.

If you are not certain, don't make the call.

Anyway, my 2pennies

Thanks
David

I'm not here to argue with you, but you seem to have me confused with someone else.

You quoted several things I didn't say. I went back in the thread and nowhere did I say it was an "obvious foul", even tho it was.

Didn't say "at all levels" because that would mean the NBA, which I have never had the pleasure.

You also say,"(a place you have never officiated according to your own comments)", please show me where I said that! I said Europe and all over the US, you do know U.S. means the United States of America?

"A foul at all levels" was not said by me either.

I don't even think I ever said it was a foul, I think I said "he got killed", speaking of Barry during the replay. Whether or not it should have been called is another question. Actually I leaned more to the side of a no call when I said something like, "come on, he took a dribble and threw up a 38 footer".

But anyway, I have been around this board long enough to know you must be in one of your moods, and I don't want to argue with you.

One last thing though, if you are going to quote someone, make sure you quote them correctly, you don't want to "let the facts get in the way of a good story", do you?

Peace