The Official Forum - Gotta get the obvious

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Gotta get the obvious (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/57517-gotta-get-obvious.html)

Clearly a foul.

We need to be at our best when the game is on the line. Down 3 with seconds left, you have to know a 3 pt. try is coming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef (Post 667974)

...and my point is that to make a statement that the REFEREES decided the game with ONE CALL is simply folly. Assuming the shooter was a 72% shooter, there was slightly better than a 1/6 chance the shooting team would have ended up winning the game. In other words, there would have been roughly an 82% chance that the no call did NOT alter the outcome of the game. Had the shooter been a 60% shooter, the odds that the official's no call actually altered the winner would be at under 11%.

Put another way, there was an 82 - 89+% chance that this one call had NO EFFECT on the winning team.

My only point is to illustrate that it is unfair to take a play that represents 1/1920ths of the game (one second) and place 100% of the result of the entire game on this one play.

That said, in looking at the long video (the last 2 minutes of the game), it appears as though the Lead has him arm raised (with a fist???) as he is moving from the endline along the sideline. He did not immediately sprint off of the floor. Kind of strange.

That all depends on how you want to do the math. It's true that arithmetically, this call was not that likely to have determined the game, but geometrically, it was pivotal. The no call had a maximum impact (arithmetically of 3 points). But geometrically it took the teams chances of winning from some low percentage to strictly zero. A 100% decrease in chances of winning. In analyzing whether the officiating errors were determinative I think you need to look at both in some reasonable balance.
________
Laguna Beach Resort Jomtien Condo

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 667971)

I think he should've seen the arm getting hooked regardless of where he stood on the endline. I don't think this is really a positioning discussion or issue -- rather it's a judgment or cojones discussion or issue.

+1

Whatinthehell else does the L have to do in this situation but go with the ball? Going into a final shot like that, he doesn't have anything off-ball to worry about, for sure. If the L was on the end line and ball side as written above, he has to get that call. He couldn't be in a much better position to do so on a shot in front of the bench area imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahoopref (Post 667961)

I understand what you are saying. In this case, I believe the L was officiating wide on the baseline and got caught not seeing the arm contact on the opposite side of the shooter's body. By being on the baseline, he had a bad angle at the play because he was straight-lined. Positioning himself before the play started is key in this situation.

Being closer (say between the FT line and the baseline) along the key and the L would have had a great angle at the play.

(With the caveat that I didn't watch the video ...)

You might be right on this play. But, suppose the same setup and someone came running out from the block at the shooter. Now, if the official was inside, he'd be straightlined on that contact and you'd (or some would) be arguing that the official should be wide to see between the players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 668008)

+2 - JR, what is this world coming too!! This is like TWICE in a row we have agreed. Hopefully you are still taking your meds and this is not a sign of illness on your part!!:D (I'll be checking my meds just in case!)
If the "L" were at or near the junction of the 3 pt line and baseline he would have a GREAT look at this play. No need to be on the court, that seems sort of bizzare. (No matter how you spell it)
As for the FT shooting % that makes no sense. For starters, I don't know the FT% of ANY of the players on the floor, maybe I need to work on that. Secondly, what if the player were only a 50% FT shooter, yet was 0 - 3 from the FT line in the game. Using the % argument, the shooter would make all 3 thus keeping him at 50%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 667980)

And without the foul, the kid had a zero percent chance.

I gotta say, I find this entire post and this line of thinking quite strange.

Rich,
The original post indicated:
Just watched the California sectional between Etiwanda and Mater Dei..

I thought some strange coaching and time management at the end but Mater Die is up by 3 and Etiwanda has a last second shot for three right in fromt of their bench.... The player who is going to shoot the three gets grabbed and no call.... The initial view and physics of the play made it look like a foul... when looked at in slow motion and replay it clearly was a foul.

Moral of the story when youve got video you gotta get it right. Video does not lie... Three shot foul down by three could have made a difference...

We always hear let the kids decide the game. in this case the officials decided the game because a clear foul happened and did not put the shooter on the line.

My points were and are that:
1. Just because a game is on video does not mean that an official can be perfect all the time.
2. There is NO QUESTION that the official missed the call (lack of a pair or otherwise), BUT that call did not necessarily determine the outcome of the game.

While it is true that the shooting team's chances went from somewhat thin (10 to 20% or so) to zero, I still find it inaccurate to state that this ONE CALL decided the outcome of the game -- regardless how bad the call (no-call) may have been.