You make the call!
 

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iXtU0m___zk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I agree with the no call...contact was marginal at best IMO.

Wouldn't Bet My House On It ...
 

Travel?

I don't think so. His pivot foot on the spin never came back down.

No travel because like stiffler's mom said the pivot never came back down. In saying that I see many officials call that a travel. Likewise a no call here gets screams from every coach "travel".

Thank God That I Didn't Bet The House On It ...
 

Did he slide the pivot foot before he pivoted?

If you need to watch the replay 6 times to figure it out, then no, he didn't.

Agreed....:rolleyes:

Rebounding foul (aka "over the back")

First impression yes, but I'm leaning more towards a patient whistle to see results of the play. Does white secure the ball? If so, I'm passing. Unfortunately the video ends too soon.

It goes OOB to white.

At this age group and skill level, definitely have a patient whistle on the rebounding action at the end of the video.

If a PC was called, I'd have no problem with it. I would expect a PC call if similar action was called earlier in the game and by your P. You might not call a PC based on this play alone, but you may have to adapt if this is called a PC up to this point.

I Stand Corrected ...
 

I've watched the video about a dozen times. If his left foot is the pivot foot, then stiffler3492, and friends, are correct, the left foot never comes down.

Thanks reffish. Nice video.

Tough decision to make, great teaching points in the 9 second clip!

If there is a call to be made, who has it... the L across the paint or the C who is not engaged whatsoever?

Looks like they were so caught up in the block/charge/nothing play, that a g/t may have been missed.

I like the no call

That would be the C's call. He's there to ref the play.

As the Lead, I am picking up the secondary defender. IMO, I'm going with the PC..

Nothing....play on.

C may have been a step late to see defender before contact. I've been taught that in quick transition the L has the best opportunity to see this type of play.

In the video, the new lead really took off on the rebound and appears to have perfect position on the endline to view the play. Hard to argue with his no call.

+infinity

We're taught here, as lead, to either rotate in transition or, if you can't make it over in time, let the C have the first crack at this call. In this play, it looks like the play happened quickly enough that lead couldn't get over.

Either way, it looks like a flop from the camera angle.

I got nothing on that rebound, either.

I guess since there's multiple aspects in which we're judging on rather than just the block/charge play:

No travel
Nothing on the block/charge play
Nothing on the rebounding action...regardless of who got the ball subsequently...at least from the portion of rebounding action we are afforded.

In the video, the new lead really took off on the rebound and appears to have perfect position on the endline to view the play. Hard to argue with his no call.[/QUOTE]

I just stated how I would officiate the play. You can bet your sweeta** that was a secondary defender in transition who drew contact in the upper torso..

Secondary defender? Maybe I'm confused, but how do you define secondary defender? The defender who went down on this play sure looks like the primary defender of the guy with the ball. If he's a secondary defender, then the shooter is a secondary offender.

We're all watching that defender, and let's just say the contact does not appear to be what knocks the defender 4 feet backwards. Does that mean there wasn't a foul? Not necessarily, but the C was in good position and I'd defer to his decision.

I don't know. Hard to tell with 33 White eclipsing the camera's angle at the time of the block/charge/nothing.

The contact starts at the six second mark with white 33 out of the way. The contact doesn't quite rise to the level of a foul to me because IMO, the offensive player does contact the defender, but does not really go through the defender...the fact the offensive player does a (legal) spin move also helps in selling the fact that the contact is marginal...at least on this play.

Another vote for no call. It didn't seem that he displaced the defender to that degree, and his movement went back away from the defender rotating toward the goal.

As others have stated, if you had a similar play called a PC foul earlier, then get that one to "Mirror plays" for your crew.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Having the philosophy that we will make the same call on "similar plays" is a crock, in my opinion. No matter how similar two plays may be, they may still fall on opposite sides of a very fine line. Each must be judged on its own merit.

It might be a crock to you personally, but not to all supervisors.

There is crew consistency. And I know my supervisors don't want to hear a "fine line" explanation for why 49/51, 51/49, or 50/50 plays were called differently on one end of the court as opposed to the other.

CHARGE!!

MTD, Sr.

As the contrarian, what about a travel on the initial rebound and dribble out? Then I have nothing till an on the back rebound foul after the shot.

The explanation is simple. If 49/51 and 51/49 plays are not called differently, then one of them was called wrong.

So where do you and your supervisor draw the line? 52/48? 55/45?

I don't get it.

Most people I talk to do get it. So it's not a problem anywhere I work.

+1

Well I've never seen u work, but it sounds like u r a pure playcaller and not a referee, I'm not trying to be mean or derogatory or attack you, but you have to have a feel for the game imo and all I can say is if a player spins off a guy like that on that end and we have a no call and then a guy on the other end does the same type spin move and the contact looks slightly more than the last play I still think no call is the correct call for consistency of the game. Now that is not to say that you have an obvious off. Foul and then an obvious, blatant block on the other. I can't tell where to draw the line, this job is not black and white at every venture there is plenty of grey and u have to have the ability to feel your particular game out, cause every game is different as we all know.

I got lost somewhere, but I have a question. If a play is called wrong at one end, is your supervisor expecting you to call a similar play wrong on the other end?

And...I'm back. I agree, call 50/50 calls with consistency, but a wrong call does not mean we should strive to be consistently wrong for the rest of the game. And you know me, I will have awareness but I may not see a play SDF that you call like I do on a play I have later. Does Donnee still talk about remembering the last 4 calls? I miss basketball on the east coast.

Definitely not. A wrong call at one end does not mean to make the same bone-headed call at the other. We're talking about those 50/50 plays that could go either way. Everyone has their own judgement, what may be incidental or marginal to one official may be a foul to another. So we have to be on the same page. Most folks like to limit this convo to PC/Block plays, but it applies to a multitude of situations: freedom of movement; hand-checking; contact on the shooter in the paint; rebounding fouls; etc.


Haven't been around Donnee as much lately but I do have a local mentor (who happens to be on the Women's side) who preaches that type of knowledge of the game.

Good call. But not by Red 55, but rather Red 10 on the defensive rebound. He landed with both feet on the ground.

< fiba video voice >
The left foot is moved to a new point of contact with the floor which establishes the right foot as the pivot foot. The right foot is then lifted before releasing the ball to start a dibble. Travelling violation missed by the officials.
< /fiba video voice >

There was wisdom in reply #33 I think:D

And then if the contact is slightly more......and slightly more.......and slightly more........??


You have to draw a line, on every call.

The last call has zero bearing.

You're thinking WAY too hard on this.

I'm thinking about it now, because that's what the thread is about. That's kinda the whole point, I think. You don't think about it. (Is this play similar to that last play or not? hmmmmm) You just make the call.

Really? I can see you're a great partner. :rolleyes:

I guess in your world everyone has the exact same judgement. Great if you are a one man crew.

If u don't think there are certain points in games where the last call doesn't matter than your games suffer and I don't believe your officiating realistically. Like I said earlier you have to have a feel for the game. If u believe the contact on the other end is obviously different than the previous end then do what you have to do, but if it isn't and you call the two plays differently then prepare to take crap from, players, coaches, fans and most importantly supervisors for being incosistent when all you really had to do was call them the same and the coach can't say a word when u tell him that. Just my take tho, maybe more than just you disagree with me.

Gotta tell you, I'm not sure what's really all that difficult or controversial about your take. Seems pretty basic and obvious to me. :shrug:

The only way two calls can be different is if the contact is obviously different?

Obvious to whom?

The only thing obvious about many calls to many observers is "Hey! He called that against us! I don't like it!"

If one isn't prepared to take crap, I suggest one should consider another pastime.

What can he say anyway?

"That's the same play you called against us on the other end!"

"Nah, but it was similar."

There is no difficulty or controversy behind what he said because it is basic and obvious to most...but then again so is a blarge administration....;)

I think both sides have overstated the obvious. Consistency is obviously one of the most important things we strive for. But, conversely, the next call does not have to be the same as the last call, even though it may seem to be exactly the same to the untrained, often biased observer.

And no one said it did. Only that you should probably take the last call into account. If you think they're sufficiently different, fine, but to simply ignore the history of the individual game is, to quote Ben, "unrealistic."

The GAME within the GAME...

Snaqs we gotta work a game together!

Consistency, Consistency, Consistency...
 

Written by Tim Sloan, Bettendorf, Iowa
Released on MyReferee
Copyright© Referee Enterprises, Inc.

In basketball, consistency is a term that few can define but almost everyone can recognize and appreciate in a crew. Provided that a referee doesn't make the game dangerous or take the competitiveness out of it, the good coaches and teams will adjust to what the zebras give them. In fact, you can often pick those coaches' voices out from the mob behind you. Instead of asking, "How could you call that a foul?" they're reminding you, "If you're going to call it at that end. ..."

Consistency for basketball officials really exists on four levels and it's important for their upward mobility to succeed on all four of them.

Self-consistency. Most have heard the debate about whether a foul in the first quarter should necessarily be a foul in the fourth quarter or vice versa. Generically, a foul is a foul. But if you divide them up as safety, advantage-disadvantage and game control fouls, there are many successful officials who preach flexibility on the latter. They feel that you can change the mood of a game for the worse by being too rigid or too loose at the wrong times. Maybe so, but you still have to maintain a level of predictability during a game. If you're like most, trying to deliberately change your standard for calling a foul during a game is like trying to write with your other hand. It's clumsy, frustrating and not very pretty. Changing your standard depends too much on your current mindset. So, it's reasonable to believe that self-consistency over the course of a game breaks down as a result of other factors. Some of the principal ones are fatigue, attitude toward the game and comfort.

Fatigue is an easy one. An official whose heart isn't getting enough blood to the legs isn't getting enough to the brain either. Attention to keys and concentration dwindle as the game wears on and so do the responses. There is no real substitute for being in condition to handle the game. Attitude toward the game changes when the official forgets what I consider to be the golden rule: "You're paid to be here so it doesn't matter what you think of the experience." Call the game and don't cheat them with "good enough." Comfort doesn't refer to the fit of your compression shorts. It means how you're reacting to your surroundings: Do you feel safe? Are people or surroundings distracting you? There are people who can sleep soundly in an orchestra pit and there are referees who can cheerfully blank out the most hostile of environments and keep on doing their jobs. They don't let the fear of a lynching change how they call a game. Learn to deal with stress or learn to manage the issues that threaten you. The great officials can do that.

The bottom line is that the participants need to be able to trust you if you want to keep getting called back. And having the physical and emotional tools to call it consistently is paramount.

Consistency within the crew. Mechanically, I think it's far easier for referees who have never met to work together in a three-person crew than two. That's because they can focus on a more confined area and have to rely less intuitively on their partners to watch their backs for them. There's less of a need for a "system." That goes for crews who have worked together for years, too. Unfortunately, the flip side of that "independence" is the same partners might have more trouble staying "in sync" with one another during a game. If they're paying less attention to what their comrades are doing, they're probably not calling exactly what the others are calling either. You want everyone calling it the same way.

Crewmembers have to establish a reputation for working to the same standard in the same situations throughout the game. Unless you can find identical triplets somewhere, it inevitably means that even the best officials have to exercise some give-and-take in their judgments to leverage their success as a crew.

Consistency from crew to crew. One of the most underestimated factors in a crew's potential for success this week is what the coaches had to put up with last week. If the officials come in and put on a completely different show than the last gang did, one crew's going to get it in the neck. Somebody in authority has to be communicating with crews and telling them how their products differ - good or bad. It's even more critical that those crews listen and adjust. A great way to get booted out of a conference is to shrug off how you differ from other crews and say, "Take it or leave it." They'll leave it.

Perhaps the right word isn't consistency but capability. In manufacturing, a consistent process is one that always gives the same result but that result isn't necessarily the one you want. A capable process is one that consistently gives the desired results. Assigners want officials who reward their confidence in them by turning in capable performances night after night.

Fortunately, capability is a quality you can develop if you're willing to work at it. And it certainly pays off when you do.

Source: Arbiter

This reminds me of A Few Good Men.
I object.
Overruled.
I STRENUOUSLY object.
Oh STRENUOUSLY object, well thats different.

Cool. Sorry I missed your post. I often don't read all posts in the off-season.