Maui Invitational Video Plays (Marq vs Wichita St)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My first time watching a play at full-speed is most important to me IMO, cuz that is most similar to what happens in-game. Sure you can slow down the video and go frame-by-frame and parse things but that doesn’t really help cuz we don’t referee on the floor that way.

The hell it doesn't. It shows that what we think we see on the court is not always what actually happens, and that we need to adjust how we are looking at plays.

That is one of the purposes of video. Look for reasons to get plays right, not excuses to get them wrong.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The hell it doesn't. It shows that what we think we see on the court is not always what actually happens, and that we need to adjust how we are looking at plays.

That is one of the purposes of video. Look for reasons to get plays right, not excuses to get them wrong.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Agree. Slow motion replay is to understand how we got it wrong and then know what it would look like at full speed so we can get it right at full speed.

Originally Posted by Raymond

The hell it doesn't. It shows that what we think we see on the court is not always what actually happens, and that we need to adjust how we are looking at plays.

That is one of the purposes of video. Look for reasons to get plays right, not excuses to get them wrong.

Hope you’re not implying that I am looking for excuses to get plays wrong.

Pretty sure it’s a given that what we see on the court is not what actually happens. I go slo-mo sometimes to break down a play to see if I got it right or not, but again, that’s not how we referee in real time. The best thing a Ref can do when watching video and finding ways to get better is pretending you are one of the officials in the floor and watching the game at full speed. What should that Ref be watching? When should he switch to a different competitive matchup? When should he switch on ball? Where should he move to see the play? Which defender is he refereeing on a multiple defender play? What’s the obvious call in a situation? Those are the questions I ask — I don’t make excuses, and parsing slo-mo video doesn’t help anyone referee better.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Hope you’re not implying that I am looking for excuses to get plays wrong.

Pretty sure it’s a given that what we see on the court is not what actually happens. I go slo-mo sometimes to break down a play to see if I got it right or not, but again, that’s not how we referee in real time. The best thing a Ref can do when watching video and finding ways to get better is pretending you are one of the officials in the floor and watching the game at full speed. What should that Ref be watching? When should he switch to a different competitive matchup? When should he switch on ball? Where should he move to see the play? Which defender is he refereeing on a multiple defender play? What’s the obvious call in a situation? Those are the questions I ask — I don’t make excuses, and parsing slo-mo video doesn’t help anyone referee better.

How do you know what makes other officials better? Maybe it doesn't make you better you can't speak what it does for me.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Raymond

How do you know what makes other officials better? Maybe it doesn't make you better you can't speak what it does for me.

I'm interested in hearing exactly how in this play you are supposed to 1) referee the defenders upper body to know whether it is moving forward or not and 2) judge exactly when one foot touches down making the defender legal.

I'm arguing there are limits to which we can detect parts of a given play. If you want to argue that the defenders big toe touches down before the offensive player initiates contact -- fine. I'm saying I (and any other human) can't see two things at once. Which is why we have judgement. In this play I lean towards calling a foul, whereas you lean the opposite way. That's fine. Just understand that most coaches (who write the rules and to an extent govern an officials advancement) would see this play as an obvious foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I'm interested in hearing exactly how in this play you are supposed to 1) referee the defenders upper body to know whether it is moving forward or not and 2) judge exactly when one foot touches down making the defender legal.

I'm arguing there are limits to which we can detect parts of a given play. If you want to argue that the defenders big toe touches down before the offensive player initiates contact -- fine. I'm saying I (and any other human) can't see two things at once. Which is why we have judgement. In this play I lean towards calling a foul, whereas you lean the opposite way. That's fine. Just understand that most coaches (who write the rules and to an extent govern an officials advancement) would see this play as an obvious foul.

Coaches are the ones who wrote the rule that they don't want Shooters making unnatural movements to draw contact and get a foul on Defenders who are jumping past, and not into the shooter.

And let's say that the defender was still airborne. He jumped to that spot before the shooter did. The shooter had stopped and then after the defender had jumped to that position, the shooter jumped in that direction.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[cmcramer]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Coaches are the ones who wrote the rule that they don't want Shooters making unnatural movements to draw contact and get a foul on Defenders who are jumping past, and not into the shooter.

It was such an 'unnatural movement' that the ball went through the hoop.

I call it a natural 'draw the foul' move.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cmcramer

It was such an 'unnatural movement' that the ball went through the hoop.

I call it a natural 'draw the foul' move.

It was so unnatural that he shot a jump shot with the wrong hand.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I'm interested in hearing exactly how in this play you are supposed to 1) referee the defenders upper body to know whether it is moving forward or not and 2) judge exactly when one foot touches down making the defender legal.

I'm arguing there are limits to which we can detect parts of a given play. If you want to argue that the defenders big toe touches down before the offensive player initiates contact -- fine. I'm saying I (and any other human) can't see two things at once. Which is why we have judgement. In this play I lean towards calling a foul, whereas you lean the opposite way. That's fine. Just understand that most coaches (who write the rules and to an extent govern an officials advancement) would see this play as an obvious foul.

Arem, you have to see the whole play at once. You've got an offensive player obviously diving in to draw a foul. Really, really obvious. I'm not giving him that call. Your statement that most coaches and those who govern ....would see this as an "obvious foul" is absurd.

And i wont be looking for the defenders big toe hitting ground etc. This is where judgment comes into play. Offensive player dives in... i need to see more from defender, moving at him , trying block shot etc. this defender is trying to get the hell out of way. Now, you can call it a foul. Obviously, these guys did. I dont agree. Think they both should have passed. it certainly isnt an obvious foul..