Final Four: Virginia v Auburn

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The take foul is a judgment call. The double dribble is not a judgment call. Maybe the official saw the contact and decided to pass? We'll likely not know the answer to that, but is possible!

How is it not a judgment call? When a dribble ends or when another begins is a judgment call. Now some judgment calls are more obvious than others and in this situation based off of looking at it closely, yes this was not as hard of judgment, but looking at it live can be all kinds of things in mind. Even stepping out of bounds is a judgment call. I do not know why people act like these things cannot involve some judgment and part of a judgment is being able to clearly see the entire picture. I think this play was unusual and probably the official assumed that the defender touched the ball or just was not sure so why call something that critical if you are not sure.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I think that is why some are not giving much leniency on the double dribble, as with two officials in that area, at least one needs to come up with that 'by rule' call.

This was one official's call, not two officials. The play was going away from the C. And if you called that and I ruled something, then I would have an issue with you calling something that I believe I saw.

Peace

[so cal lurker]

A bit of class from Coach Pearl:

Pearl on missed double dribble: 'Get over it'

"The biggest point I want to make, and I'm sincere in this, I'm not just saying this because it's politically the right thing to say. There is human error involved in the game. Kids make mistakes, coaches make mistakes. Yes, officials will make mistakes. That's part of the game. Get over it," he said.

"Sometimes they're going to go your way, sometimes they're not going to go your way. Are we going to give God less glory because we lost and ... only because we win? Stop. Grow up, this is part of the game. These kids taught us, I think, in many, many ways how to handle defeat. And that's a difficult thing to do for these young kids. And I'm proud of them."

[sj]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

A bit of class from Coach Pearl:

Pearl on missed double dribble: 'Get over it'

"The biggest point I want to make, and I'm sincere in this, I'm not just saying this because it's politically the right thing to say. There is human error involved in the game. Kids make mistakes, coaches make mistakes. Yes, officials will make mistakes. That's part of the game. Get over it," he said.

"Sometimes they're going to go your way, sometimes they're not going to go your way. Are we going to give God less glory because we lost and ... only because we win? Stop. Grow up, this is part of the game. These kids taught us, I think, in many, many ways how to handle defeat. And that's a difficult thing to do for these young kids. And I'm proud of them."

This would have to be one of the classiest reactions ever by a coach to a situation such as this.

[Raymond]

Was Kyle Guy's 3-pointer to make the score 12-5 a judgment call? His foot was either on the 3-point line or not, correct? Didn't one official judge it to be a 2-pointer?

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Was Kyle Guy's 3-pointer to make the score 12-5 a judgment call? His foot was either on the 3-point line or not, correct? Didn't one official judge it to be a 2-pointer?

I would not categorize that as a judgment call. Either you see it or you don't. Obviously the official that signaled it as a 2-pointer did not see it correctly, as it was overturned during the time out on video review.

However, if a block/charge call was made and reviewed, you could still have a 'split decision' as to what it was. It happens here all the time. We watch a play situation and half think it is one call, and half think it is the other. That would categorize as a judgment call.

I would hope on reviewing that 3-point shot, that everyone that sees the video would accept the visual fact that his foot was actually behind the line. Black and white, no judgment required.....

But with all the conversation on what judgment means, obviously this is strictly just my opinion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I would not categorize that as a judgment call. Either you see it or you don't. Obviously the official that signaled it as a 2-pointer did not see it correctly, as it was overturned during the time out on video review.

However, if a block/charge call was made and reviewed, you could still have a 'split decision' as to what it was. It happens here all the time. We watch a play situation and half think it is one call, and half think it is the other. That would categorize as a judgment call.

I would hope on reviewing that 3-point shot, that everyone that sees the video would accept the visual fact that his foot was actually behind the line. Black and white, no judgment required.....

But with all the conversation on what judgment means, obviously this is strictly just my opinion.

I was half being a smart-a$$ in asking that question. I think we are conflating "an official's judgment" with "a judgment call" in this conversation. An official's judgment can be wrong, as with the 3-point shot in question, but there are plays where there is not necessarily a right or wrong, just the official's judgment (ie: severity of a foul/start of the shooting motion/when a dribble ended)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I was half being a smart-a$$ in asking that question. I think we are conflating "an official's judgment" with "a judgment call" in this conversation. An official's judgment can be wrong, as with the 3-point shot in question, but there are plays where there is not necessarily a right or wrong, just the official's judgment (ie: severity of a foul/start of the shooting motion/when a dribble ended)

Thank you!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I would not categorize that as a judgment call. Either you see it or you don't. Obviously the official that signaled it as a 2-pointer did not see it correctly, as it was overturned during the time out on video review.

I would hope on reviewing that 3-point shot, that everyone that sees the video would accept the visual fact that his foot was actually behind the line. Black and white, no judgment required.....

Yes, but they had to blow up that picture to make a clear determination. The color of the shoes and the line were similar color. The official does not get a second chance live to make that call. And if the camera angle or the amount of angles were not there, they would have to go with what the official saw.

We make educated guesses all the time. HD replay has made these calls easier to dissect. The out of bounds call that appeared to be off on Virginia was so close that we might not have had any high-speed camera to ever see that but for when the game was being played. And certainly, no one is calling that a violation on TT in that situation if the Virginia player clearly knocks it out of his hand without the benefit of any replay. That was a judgment call even if it might have looked another way to the people not making the decision.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, but they had to blow up that picture to make a clear determination. The color of the shoes and the line were similar color. The official does not get a second chance live to make that call. And if the camera angle or the amount of angles were not there, they would have to go with what the official saw.

We make educated guesses all the time. HD replay has made these calls easier to dissect. The out of bounds call that appeared to be off on Virginia was so close that we might not have had any high-speed camera to ever see that but for when the game was being played. And certainly, no one is calling that a violation on TT in that situation if the Virginia player clearly knocks it out of his hand without the benefit of any replay. That was a judgment call even if it might have looked another way to the people not making the decision.

Peace

As Raymond said, you're conflating two different things.

Determining the facts of what occurred (ball touched, player location, etc.) can certainly require judgement, but once you have determined what happened, the call is generally a natural result of the facts. There is no judgement to the call itself. The actions dictate the call for everyone. You don't judge that someone was OOB but not far enough to matter.

However, given the same set of facts, there are some calls that then require judgment to handle....RSBQ, Displacement, Verticality, block/charge, etc. The call it self is where the judgement occurs....a judgment call. Given the same set of facts, officials can come to different conclusions about what should be called, if any call should be made and they can all be correct.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How is it not a judgment call? When a dribble ends or when another begins is a judgment call. Now some judgment calls are more obvious than others and in this situation based off of looking at it closely, yes this was not as hard of judgment, but looking at it live can be all kinds of things in mind. Even stepping out of bounds is a judgment call. I do not know why people act like these things cannot involve some judgment and part of a judgment is being able to clearly see the entire picture.

That is not what "Judgement Call" means.

A "Judgement Call" is when what happens is not in question. It is when the official has to decide if what happened (and was clearly observed) is an infraction or not is (is the contact enough for a foul or not, which player is responsible for the contact, or a roll of the hand enough for a carry or not, when specifically does the dribble end as a player catches the ball with one hand).

There is no question about what happened on this play. The official didn't apply a judgment and decide it was not enough to call. The official simply didn't see it or didn't recognize what he saw.

Stepping OOB is not a judgement call either. The player either stepped out or the player didn't step out. When the player steps out, there is no judgement to be applied to determine if you should blow the whistle or not.

Not seeing something isn't a judgement. It is just not seeing something.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is not what "Judgement Call" means.

A "Judgement Call" is when what happens is not in question. It is when the official has to decide if what happened (and was clearly observed) is an infraction or not is (is the contact enough for a foul or not, which player is responsible for the contact, or a roll of the hand enough for a carry or not, when specifically does the dribble end as a player catches the ball with one hand).

Can you direct me to the exact place where I can find this so-called definition? Because the actual definition of "judgment" does not suggest what you are saying.

All judgment means in a dictionary definitions, "the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions."

So let us not add to what we say the word means when there is no such change in the definition.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is no question about what happened on this play. The official didn't apply a judgment and decide it was not enough to call. The official simply didn't see it or didn't recognize what he saw.

Did you talk to him directly? I know I didn't talk to the official personally. Actually, I have not heard him speak at all on the matter. I have no idea what he was thinking or not thinking at the time of the play. I just know there was a violation not called. He might have thought the player did something else that did not make it a violation. He would have been wrong, but I have no idea if he missed the action all together thinking of something else or he

Stepping OOB is not a judgement call either. The player either stepped out or the player didn't step out. When the player steps out, there is no judgment to be applied to determine if you should blow the whistle or not.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not seeing something isn't a judgement. It is just not seeing something.

His judgment could have been wrong with either not being aware of one part of that play. If there was no judgment then there would have been a call.

Peace

[deecee]

In the end 2 top officials did something we all do game in and game out. They missed a call. This call in and of itself did not dictate outcome. The losing team hits a shot they missed earlier in the game, or one less turnover, things are different. The difference is time to recover is non-existant, however they still fouled on the 3-point attempt.

Would I have made this call or not? I don't know. If I'm on this game and make this call, I guarantee there will be other wrong calls that would get attention. It's a zero sum game to argue "a call dictated the outcome" unless the call was wrong at the buzzer that determined an outcome. That is the only scenario where a call dictates a game.

I wish I had the opportunity to screw this call up. That means I did something right to officiate a final 4 game. Ill take it.

[thedewed]

I think the no-judgment involved here means that if you immediately asked those 2 officials what had just happened, they knew that the ball hit the back of the dribbler's foot, behind him, 6 feet or so away from any part of the defender's body, then he caught the ball, again no question the defender didn't touch, and then he started to dribble again. The booted the call. And I sure hope that part of what happened wasn't that the C didn't want to offend the T, because that is an unfortunate perspective of too many officials. If you are sure of what you see in that situation, step in and get it right. There was no question what the facts were, they just didn't process them.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by thedewed

I think the no-judgment involved here means that if you immediately asked those 2 officials what had just happened, they knew that the ball hit the back of the dribbler's foot, behind him, 6 feet or so away from any part of the defender's body, then he caught the ball, again no question the defender didn't touch, and then he started to dribble again. The booted the call. And I sure hope that part of what happened wasn't that the C didn't want to offend the T, because that is an unfortunate perspective of too many officials. If you are sure of what you see in that situation, step in and get it right. There was no question what the facts were, they just didn't process them.

Watch the film. There is no way the C can see this play or make this call. The L if he's looking there? Maybe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by Rich

Watch the film. There is no way the C can see this play or make this call. The L if he's looking there? Maybe.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Sirmons is the C and is about 10 feet away staring at it. not sure what you are thinking are looking at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TEtgC2DjWw

it's crystal clear with no doubt on any relevant fact what occurred to C or T.