Consistency? What's that?

[wanja]

Three consistency propositions.
1. Higher quality of play, greater need for consistency.


With young players just starting out -- safety, sportsmanship, teamwork and a positive experience often (and justifiably) take a back seat to rules consistency. Player age and size, score, clock and skill are huge rules application factors that decrease as such with the quality of play. There are few circumstances that justify rule application inconsistency at the higher levels. Here's one that I consider. If a trend is developing in a game toward rougher player and player confrontation, tighter calling of borderline fouls may be appropriate.


2. Greater consistency is the inevitable trend.
More scrutiny from coach, supervisors and media demands more consistency. Video exposes.


3. Greater consistency can be mandated and promoted.
It is no accident that hand checking, displacement by offensive post players and palming have decreased over the past few seasons in NBA games. This past season, John Adams, the NCAA men's officials coordinator, introduced the concept of absolutes (e.g. 2 hands on opponent by defender is a foul) to promote consistency. He also mentioned at a camp this summer, that physical fitness and the ability to cover the floor was a primary consideration for tournament assignments. So officiating consistency extends beyond the rules. Trickle down is real. Consistency is also being promoted by camps, the NFHS and IAABO.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also, for your viewing pleasure, from the California Basketball Officials Association's "Official's Creed":

Consistency
The greatest virtue which an official can possess is consistency. He/she may have an incorrect interpretation of a rule; he/she may practice techniques contrary to those to which a team is accustomed; judgment on some play situations may be in conflict with the commonly accepted interpretations - but with it all, if the official’s practice and decision are exactly the same under the same or similar circumstances, players can readily adjust their play to fit the official. They may be surprised and confused momentarily, but when they discover that the official is unwavering in procedures, they can reorganize and continue with confidence. Probably the greatest inconsistencies occur in judgments on charging and blocking. The official should give this play much thought and attention, and learn to call it consistently. Have the courage to withhold a whistle despite contact if no advantage has been gained. If a highly technical call is made and then a flagrant act is passed on the players are placed in a position where they cannot establish a flow. Some officials may never be able to attain a high degree of consistency and they should be eliminated, just as incapable players are gradually cut from the squad. However, much can be done to point the way.

The CBOA creed (as excerpted) misses the mark on 2 counts. First, consistency by an individual official is not virtuous if it not consistent with crew consistency. Maybe crew consistency is mentioned elsewhere. Secondly, how often is too often to be consistent but clearly wrong on the rules?

A final note. A pet peeve of mine is that there should be more consistency in the approved mechanics and rules at all levels. FIBA does a much better job of this than the NBA, WNBA, NCAA-M, NCAA-W and NFHS. Elimination of some of the approved differences would directly help improve officiating consistency and also better allow newer officials to adapt good practices through observation of more accomplished officials.

[tomegun]

Wanja,

With all due respect to Mr. Adams, I will bet you $100 that he isn't willing to walk the walk come march and april concerning physical fitness.

[mbyron]

Frankly, I'm with Emerson.

Originally Posted by Ralph Waldo

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Consistency in itself has no value, or else a game that started with a couple bad calls would have to be called badly throughout. Sorry California: not a virtue at all, much less the highest one.

So what distinguishes a "foolish consistency" from whatever it is about consistency that people admire? Not making the same call, but making the right call in each case.

I think that rookies and sometimes those who teach them seek a simple formula for officiating. But the reason that no simple formula is forthcoming is that good officiating is making the right call in each case. And doing that requires experience, since we have to factor in that cool list BITS mentioned in his first post of the thread: "age, skill, size, ability, mismatch, [player] experience, score, 'temperature', time on the clock, foul count, time of the season, and other factors." That last one is a kicker, too.

And, given how the game is actually officiated, each of those is sometimes relevant. Judging when and how much is extraordinarily complicated and not algorithmic: a computer could never be programmed to officiate for this reason (and computational models of mind are misguided for the same reason -- but I digress!). And on top of the complexity of information needed in each judgment situation, the call must be made fast. Fast and right is a tall order.

My conclusion is that consistency in itself has little value: what's valuable is an official's capacity to make the right call. If officials can do that every time, great, but we'll take what we can get.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Frankly, I'm with Emerson.



Consistency in itself has no value, or else a game that started with a couple bad calls would have to be called badly throughout. Sorry California: not a virtue at all, much less the highest one.

So what distinguishes a "foolish consistency" from whatever it is about consistency that people admire? Not making the same call, but making the right call in each case.

I think that rookies and sometimes those who teach them seek a simple formula for officiating. But the reason that no simple formula is forthcoming is that good officiating is making the right call in each case. And doing that requires experience, since we have to factor in that cool list BITS mentioned in his first post of the thread: "age, skill, size, ability, mismatch, [player] experience, score, 'temperature', time on the clock, foul count, time of the season, and other factors." That last one is a kicker, too.

And, given how the game is actually officiated, each of those is sometimes relevant. Judging when and how much is extraordinarily complicated and not algorithmic: a computer could never be programmed to officiate for this reason (and computational models of mind are misguided for the same reason -- but I digress!). And on top of the complexity of information needed in each judgment situation, the call must be made fast. Fast and right is a tall order.

My conclusion is that consistency in itself has little value: what's valuable is an official's capacity to make the right call. If officials can do that every time, great, but we'll take what we can get.

Very well said, mbyron!

In my experience, "consistency" is a word used by 1) a coach who really has nothing else to gripe about because the game is being called well so he/she starts yelling about "being consistent", or 2) an assignor/supervisor/coordinator who really has nothing else to talk to you about because the game was called well so he/she uses "consistency" to prove that you have something you "need to work on".

Consistency is in the eys of the beholder, no matter what field you're in.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Consistency is in the eys of the beholder, no matter what field you're in.

It's funny that you say that. In our state, coaches rate officials for every varsity game worked. In addition to the 1-5 rating (1 being the best), they also give "dings" for "areas of improvement" that they think you need to work on as an official. (Ridiculous and hilarious, right?) When our ratings came out after the season this year, every single person that I talked to had the highest number of "dings" in the "consistency" column.

The other "areas of improvement" are things like hustle, physical appearance, control, verbal communication, etc. I wish we could rate them too...it would only be fitting.

On another note pertaining to ratings. I tech'd a coach in a boys varsity game this last year toward the end of the season. (He was getting pounded by about 40 and screamed at me "Blow your whistle!!") I figured I would get a bad rating from him, no big deal. Well come to find out he also helps coach baseball, and one of my friends had the school in a baseball game this spring. The head basketball coach starts telling my friend about how I'm the only official he doesn't like, how he gave me a "5" rating, etc. The funny thing is that if a coach gives you a 5, he's supposed to write a special report to the state to accompany the rating. I haven't seen any report of any type.

[Hugh Refner]

It's been my experience that coaches define "consistency" as you being consistent in calling the game in their favor. What do you expect when you have one set of people - the coaches - totally subjective and another set of people - the officials - totally objective?

Remember - you can't "call it both ways". You can only call it one way - the correct way.