Does one call relate to the last call? - Page 2

rockyroad · #16 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 03:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I get it(I think). "Call Sequencing" means you try to make the RIGHT call EACH time.What a novel concept! Man,I wish they woulda had that when I started. All I ever heard was "be consistent".

Or the right no-call...it really does have to do with being a "team" on the floor...

Jurassic Referee · #17 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 03:57pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C

Each play is an individual happening . . . if you are consistant this concept (sequencing) becomes unimportant.

BIG TEE,to me "sequencing" and "consistency" just seem to be about the exact same thing.It also just seems to me that,every ten years or so,someone wants to re-invent the wheel,and rename some of the standard concepts of officiating.Of course,it only helps to be "sequencing" if you do happen to be consistently getting the calls right.

A horse is a horse
Of course,of course...

-edited to differentiate between "Tee"s.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 13th, 2003 at 03:21 PM]

hab_in_exile · #18 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:02pm

Why be consistent (or in proper sequence) when you could be just plain correct. Get the call right. As Kornheiser says "That's It, That's the list!"

Call Consistency, sequencing and you just confuse the issue. Consistency implies that you should allow one bad call damn you to make bad calls all game, and sequencing makes it sound like one call directly leads to another. Both are bad messages.

Make the right call. If you do that the world will be your oyster!

Jurassic Referee · #19 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:03pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rockyroad

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I get it(I think). "Call Sequencing" means you try to make the RIGHT call EACH time.What a novel concept! Man,I wish they woulda had that when I started. All I ever heard was "be consistent".

Or the right no-call...it really does have to do with being a "team" on the floor...

Agree completely,Rocky.You always want to have as much consistency within your crew as possible.'Taint always possible,but that's what we should strive for.

ChuckElias · #20 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:33pm

Quote:

Originally posted by hab_in_exile
If someone asks you what time it is and you say that it is 2:25, and you are asked again in 5 minutes you would say it was 2:30 (assuming your watch works!). Same with officiating, you just tell everyone what happened.

It's a little more complicated than that, don't you think, hab? I mean, jeez, my 7-year-old daughter can tell you the time. That's just a silly statement.

Chuck

Jurassic Referee · #21 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:43pm

Quote:

Originally posted by hab_in_exile

Make the right call.

Uh,that's basically what just about everybody has been saying,believe it or not. They've just used different ways to actually say it.

Btw, "Les Habitants sont la"!

hab_in_exile · #22 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 04:46pm

Not really. The point I am making is that you are just reporting what happened, not determining what happened. In baseball, the umpire does not decide if the player is safe or out, they just report if they are. It is not up to us as officials to decide if it is a block or charge, the rulebook and the players do that, we just report on what we have seen. Sort of like looking at your watch.
If you try to get into deciding what is what you are then using your own criteria rather than what in the rulebook. If the rulebook is consistent (the print doesn't change from game to game) and we follow the rulebook, we will be consistent.
My point is that emphasizing consistency gives people licsence to freelance. This happens in baseball (ironically citing the same sport for different reasons) where it is OK for every ump to have different strike zone as long as they are consistent. That principle does not acknowledge the fact that there is only ONE strike zone in the rules. Likewise, there is only one definition of blocking in the basketball rules. We should try to stick to that rather than our own interpretation, even if ours is consistent.
Also, I know that accomplishing this is impossible, but we should try anyway. As soon as I call the perfect game I am retiring!

ChuckElias · #23 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 05:04pm

I stand by statement. It's just not as simple as that, hab. If the ball goes OOB off a red player, but you thought that it went off white, are you reporting what happened or deciding? If B1 contacts A1 slightly just A1 is about to catch the ball, then the ball goes off B1's hand OOB, what do you do? If you're a good official you say, "out of bounds" and give the ball back to A1. Now, did that official decide what happened, or merely report it?

Chuck

Jurassic Referee · #24 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 05:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by hab_in_exile
Not really. The point I am making is that you are just reporting what happened, not determining what happened. In baseball, the umpire does not decide if the player is safe or out, they just report if they are. It is not up to us as officials to decide if it is a block or charge, the rulebook and the players do that, we just report on what we have seen. Sort of like looking at your watch.
If you try to get into deciding what is what you are then using your own criteria rather than what in the rulebook. If the rulebook is consistent (the print doesn't change from game to game) and we follow the rulebook, we will be consistent.
My point is that emphasizing consistency gives people licsence to freelance. This happens in baseball (ironically citing the same sport for different reasons) where it is OK for every ump to have different strike zone as long as they are consistent. That principle does not acknowledge the fact that there is only ONE strike zone in the rules. Likewise, there is only one definition of blocking in the basketball rules. We should try to stick to that rather than our own interpretation, even if ours is consistent.
Also, I know that accomplishing this is impossible, but we should try anyway. As soon as I call the perfect game I am retiring!

I am consistently lost as to what your point is,but please don't try to explain it again to me.I'm pretty sure that I disagree with it,anyway.

Hawks Coach · #25 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 05:18pm

Your call is the reality. What you see is what happened, not vice versa. Hab, you look for a standard that none will reach. It is the standard that replay has tried, and failed, to achieve - perfect officiating based on perfect knowledge of facts.

Everyone wants a game officiated on perfect facts, perfect rule interpretations, etc. Nobody will ever have one. Games are officiated by people making imperfect judgments based on observations that are shaped by position on the court, temperament at the time of the call, knowledge and experience.

You should always improve your rules knowledge, always try to officiate to the letter and spirit of the rule, work together to achieve more consistency in the field of officiating. But don't ever set a goal of perfection, because you are shooting for something that doesn't exist. Just enjoy the improvements you bring to the game.

BTW - the person telling you the time isn't reporting you a fact - they are reporting what they think their watch says, and they or their watch may not be correct. Even if it is, if you are using their report to make a decision, your concept of time is not necessarily theirs.

hab_in_exile · #26 (**permalink**) Thu Feb 13, 2003, 05:22pm

Hawks Coach,

Good point about the watch.

Also as above, you are reporting what you saw. You can only report on what you have seen, and that could be wrong, but perfection is a long way from where I am standing.