Final Four: Virginia v Auburn

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Recognizing facts is not judgement. It has been used in basketball for a long time with a particular meaning whether you understand that or not. Judgement calls are calls that, when seen, the official has choices to make on whether there is something to call and if it should be called. Judgement calls are adjudicating the grey areas.

A player standing OOB with the ball is a fact. If it isn't called, it isn't due to judgement, it is not recognizing a fact, not seeing it.

This play was also a fact. The player clearly was dribbling, clearly picked the ball up with two hands, and clearly dribbled again. Those are the facts and no one with a brain can honestly say otherwise. There was no judgement needed here. He just missed it.

When a player has a hand on an opponent, you can call a foul or you can not call a foul...that is a judgment call.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Recognizing facts is not judgement. It has been used in basketball for a long time with a particular meaning whether you understand that or not. Judgement calls are calls that, when seen, the official has choices to make on whether there is something to call and if it should be called. Judgement calls are adjudicating the grey areas.

A player standing OOB with the ball is a fact. If it isn't called, it isn't due to judgement, it is not recognizing a fact, not seeing it.

This play was also a fact. The player clearly was dribbling, clearly picked the ball up with two hands, and clearly dribbled again. Those are the facts and no one with a brain can honestly say otherwise. There was no judgement needed here. He just missed it.

When a player has a hand on an opponent, you can call a foul or you can not call a foul...that is a judgment call.

Agreed, but they both saw everything they needed to see that w/o question it was a clear double dribble, nothing questionable about it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Recognizing facts is not judgement. It has been used in basketball for a long time with a particular meaning whether you understand that or not. Judgement calls are calls that, when seen, the official has choices to make on whether there is something to call and if it should be called. Judgement calls are adjudicating the grey areas.

A player standing OOB with the ball is a fact. If it isn't called, it isn't due to judgement, it is not recognizing a fact, not seeing it.

This play was also a fact. The player clearly was dribbling, clearly picked the ball up with two hands, and clearly dribbled again. Those are the facts and no one with a brain can honestly say otherwise. There was no judgement needed here. He just missed it.

When a player has a hand on an opponent, you can call a foul or you can not call a foul...that is a judgment call.

Until you show me some jargon that suggests this is not a judgment call, then maybe. But you have not so it is still a judgment call. You have to make a judgment if the ball hit the dribbler and not touch the defender before the ball was picked up. And then you have to judge if the action was not the start of a dribble. Which depending on your angle and speed could be up for question. Say however you wish, it is still a judgment call to make those decisions. The difficulty is a different story, but still a judgment call. This is not like the 3 point shot they reviewed where you see a foot on the line or not.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Until you show me some jargon that suggests this is not a judgment call, then maybe. But you have not so it is still a judgment call. You have to make a judgment if the ball hit the dribbler and not touch the defender before the ball was picked up. And then you have to judge if the action was not the start of a dribble. Which depending on your angle and speed could be up for question. Say however you wish, it is still a judgment call to make those decisions. The difficulty is a different story, but still a judgment call. This is not like the 3 point shot they reviewed where you see a foot on the line or not.

Peace

Yes, those are indeed judgements, but it is still not a judgement call. There is a difference. You see the elements or you don't. Again, a judgement call is seeing the elements correctly and still having a judgement to make....block/charge, verticality, impediment, etc.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, those are indeed judgements, but it is still not a judgement call. There is a difference. You see the elements or you don't. Again, a judgement call is seeing the elements correctly and still having a judgement to make....block/charge, verticality, impediment, etc.

This is nonsense.

There are judgment calls and rules calls.

Double dribble and OOB are most certainly judgment calls. Giving a fouled player the correct number of shots is a rules decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

This is nonsense.

There are judgment calls and rules calls.

Double dribble and OOB are most certainly judgment calls. Giving a fouled player the correct number of shots is a rules decision.

Not by anything I've ever been taught.

There is no judgement to making most OOB calls, they call themselves. Occasionally, they're not so simple and require judgement, but most of the time, there is nothing to judge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not by anything I've ever been taught.

There is no judgement to making most OOB calls, they call themselves. Occasionally, they're not so simple and require judgement, but most of the time, there is nothing to judge.

Just last night should have told you how an out of bounds call can be a judgment call or even the blocked shot-out of bounds play the Gonzaga-Texas Tech game. So when you say these are not judgment calls when someone has to make a judgment that some important elements must be seen and ruled on, then that tells me we will never agree on this fact. Sorry, those are judgment calls too. Just because some might be more obvious than others, but you have to determine very important elements to make a call. The fact that a dribble was not touched and turned into an interrupted dribble and if the dribble actually ended is all judgment. You of all people love to argue with people when a dribble ends and when it ends on travel plays but somehow this has no judgment element involved what so ever. Sorry, that is silly and you should silly constantly making that argument when you are the person that often will tell people what you think when you are the only one saying that fact. If it had not been for other things you have argued about here, I would take this very differently. But you argue when dribbles end all the time and even assumed that people were saying that "two hands on the ball" was the only way you can end a dribble. That was you, not me. But now this play in question had no judgment involved? OK.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Yes, those are indeed judgements, but it is still not a judgement call. There is a difference. You see the elements or you don't. Again, a judgement call is seeing the elements correctly and still having a judgement to make....block/charge, verticality, impediment, etc.

OK, whatever you say.

Peace