Was it a foul, or not?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

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.

I guess I'm at a loss to think of how you could see definitively there's no contact on the ball or hand if you can't tell whether there's contact on the arm. If you see definitively that there's contact on the forearm and it affects the shot, by all means get it; but you're not guessing. If anything, that calls for a patient whistle.

Are you saying you're sure there was contact, but need to determine if it was illegal? If that's the case, your angle really has nothing to do with it.

[tref]

I am NOT going fishing in anothers pond for "questionable contact" when theres a capable official right on top of the play.

I follow the 3 Bs when expanding my PCA:
1. Be late
2. Be needed
3. Be right

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by tref

I am NOT going fishing in anothers pond for "questionable contact" when theres a capable official right on top of the play.

I follow the 3 Bs when expanding my PCA:
1. Be late
2. Be needed
3. Be right

I like the three B's.

Yikes I'm tired - meant this whole conversation to be about the Trail... Lead stays the hell out of this play haha.

I'm saying as the trail to have awareness of being "needed" because of the slot/center being straightlined

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I guess I'm at a loss to think of how you could see definitively there's no contact on the ball or hand if you can't tell whether there's contact on the arm. If you see definitively that there's contact on the forearm and it affects the shot, by all means get it; but you're not guessing. If anything, that calls for a patient whistle.

That's the problem I had with the entire play. If you need a zoom-in replay to tell definitively whether contact was made, and WHERE it was made (and in this case, the replay still isn't conclusive), then can you really call that a foul?

And should the NBA front office step in and make such a statement on such a close visual call in the first place?

[sseltser]

Not attempting to completely change subjects, but if you watch the replay, the contact occurred directly above the defender. Isn't this the principle of verticality? Why is this a foul on the defender when the offensive player has his arms outstretched well in front of his body?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sseltser

Not attempting to completely change subjects, but if you watch the replay, the contact occurred directly above the defender. Isn't this the principle of verticality? Why is this a foul on the defender when the offensive player has his arms outstretched well in front of his body?

Well, you made me watch it again, but I'd say the defender came out of his vertical space to make contact.

[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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

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.

It's also a good indicator of a partially blocked shot. You only call what you're sure of at any level. You're guessing if you try to go by indicators.


Always call what you know, not what you think you know. If you're unsure, swallow your whistle.

[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.