Final Four: Virginia v Auburn

[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.

[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 thedewed

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.

We obviously have no concept of 10 feet. There is no way he is 10 feet away from that play. He is on the other side of the court. Yes on the floor but he is not at all 10 feet away from that play. He is likely around 30 feet away if he is a little bit on the court. The Trail might not be 10 feet away from the play.

And if you call that on a one or one matchup at a camp, someone is going to ask you some questions.

Peace

[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

[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

[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

[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.