Was it a foul, or not?

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

If you had a controversial play in a local association and one of us made a wrong rule interp that changed the complexion of the game do we need to be hung out? if there was an issue we need to acknowledge it.

The league has kept their mouths shut on plenty of controversial plays before. And this wasn't a rule interpretation; it was a judgement call. A call, I might add, that was so close that you had to have the camera zoom-in to see where contact was actually made. It wasn't as if it was displacement or a clear hold.

But I "understand" where that came from, as that apology was due to the politics within the NBA and a future superstar within the league, and not about the officials themselves.

[rsl]

It was a make up call, 12 years later...

Jordan pushes Russell 1998

Sorry, the fanboy in me comes out ocassionally. It won't happen again.

[deecee]

The reason this no call is huge is that it DECIDED the outcome of the game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by deecee

The reason this no call is huge is that it DECIDED the outcome of the game.

Dude: smiley, blue font -- something?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by deecee

The reason this no call is huge is that it DECIDED the outcome of the game.

There's the fallacy. When you look at it in total, the truth is, every call can decide the outcome of the game, especially in a close game.

Let's say a ruling like this took place within the first three quarters. Those are points a team can never get back, and that situation will affect the score at the end. While Nevada points out that players can "overcome" it, can they really? All they can do is move on and keep playing, and all we can do is move on and keep officiating, but players will never get those points back on that incorrectly called play. Errors will indeed happen, but don't con yourself into believing that they only matter in the end.

Just because people don't remember a (non-)call, doesn't mean it isn't what it is. A game is always decided in 32, 40, or 48 minutes, never just one.

(Aside to Jurassic: +1)

[bradfordwilkins]

Let's talk about the play from a learning perspective.

There are three things I notice in the play:

1) The slot gets completely straightlined --

2) His partner in the TRAIL needs to identify this and step down into the play more to get a cleaner look at the shooting arm that the slot normally would pick up.

3) Kevin Durant is one of the most prolific shooters in the league and the ball comes up 5 feet short -- even if you are "unsure" of whether there was illegal contact or not because of your angle, you can come in a little late and pick that up by watching the trajectory of the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Let's talk about the play from a learning perspective.

There are three things I notice in the play:

1) The slot gets completely straightlined --

2) His partner in the Lead needs to identify this and step down into the play more to get a cleaner look at the shooting arm that the slot normally would pick up.

3) Kevin Durant is one of the most prolific shooters in the league and the ball comes up 5 feet short -- even if you are "unsure" of whether there was illegal contact or not because of your angle, you can come in a little late and pick that up by watching the trajectory of the ball.

#3 is completely rediculous. Contact could have been on the ball or hand. If you don't see it, don't guess.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

#3 is completely rediculous. Contact could have been on the ball or hand. If you don't see it, don't guess.

I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about this play (and similar ones) where from the lead you can see no contact on the ball or hand but questionable contact on the forearm... When you see someone who shoots well have a shot come up 5 feet short, its a good indicator of illegal contact.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

#3 is completely rediculous. Contact could have been on the ball or hand. If you don't see it, don't guess.

You have just received a citation from the Spelling Police.

[mutantducky]

Jordan for the win...Swish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! take that Jazz

[Tio]

With the play on film, it doesn't do any good to not admit a foul was missed.

We as officials, need to realize that 1 win could be the difference in: a team making the playoffs, a coach getting fired. Remember this next time you walk on the court and you see why some guys get so jacked up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Tio

With the play on film, it doesn't do any good to not admit a foul was missed.

We as officials, need to realize that 1 win could be the difference in: a team making the playoffs, a coach getting fired. Remember this next time you walk on the court and you see why some guys get so jacked up.

I'll remember it, then I'll give them a T.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by bainsey

There's the fallacy. When you look at it in total, the truth is, every call can decide the outcome of the game, especially in a close game.

Let's say a ruling like this took place within the first three quarters. Those are points a team can never get back, and that situation will affect the score at the end. While Nevada points out that players can "overcome" it, can they really? All they can do is move on and keep playing, and all we can do is move on and keep officiating, but players will never get those points back on that incorrectly called play. Errors will indeed happen, but don't con yourself into believing that they only matter in the end.

Just because people don't remember a (non-)call, doesn't mean it isn't what it is. A game is always decided in 32, 40, or 48 minutes, never just one.

(Aside to Jurassic: +1)

That may be but Nevada's point is still valid. Suppose you mess up the toss in some way that gives the wrong team the ball. That's about as insignificant a mistake as you can make. Arithmetically it costs one possession but geometrically, it doesn't even significantly move either teams chances of winning. But if you miss a call at the end where you take a possession away from a team you may move there chances significantly. It's the same arithmetic affect, but the geometric effect is much more pronounced.
________
Child Avandia

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by youngump

It's the same arithmetic affect, but the geometric effect is much more pronounced.

"Geometric," Young? Not sure what you mean there. The court dimensions are the same throughout the game.

It really all comes down to emotion, perception, and how we deal with both. When we miss most calls, people get mad, then move onto the next play, and the anger usually subsides. ("The ref screwed up that play.") If the call is missed at the end of the game, the sequence would still be the same, with fewer steps: people get mad, then... that's it. Nothing to follow, so the anger carries over into post-game, and sometimes the next day, often skewing the error to appear far greater than it really is ("The ref screwed up that game!"). In reality, it was no different than any other mistake, but emotions often overtake logic in such circumstances.

That leads to my point: If the NBA or any other league is going to apologize for an allegedly bad call at the end of the game, it better do so for mistakes at all other times of the game, or not apologize/acknowledge at all.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by bainsey

"Geometric," Young? Not sure what you mean there. The court dimensions are the same throughout the game.

It really all comes down to emotion, perception, and how we deal with both. When we miss most calls, people get mad, then move onto the next play, and the anger usually subsides. ("The ref screwed up that play.") If the call is missed at the end of the game, the sequence would still be the same, with fewer steps: people get mad, then... that's it. Nothing to follow, so the anger carries over into post-game, and sometimes the next day, often skewing the error to appear far greater than it really is ("The ref screwed up that game!"). In reality, it was no different than any other mistake, but emotions often overtake logic in such circumstances.

That leads to my point: If the NBA or any other league is going to apologize for an allegedly bad call at the end of the game, it better do so for mistakes at all other times of the game, or not apologize/acknowledge at all.

What I mean is that one way to look at things is just to assume every mistake has an effect on the score (which I call arithmetic effect). An alternative way is to evaluate the odds of winning if not the mistake versus in the case of the mistake (which I refer to as geometric effect). The mistake at the front of the game just doesn't change the odds of winning much.
________
VAPORIZER REVIEW