Travel or Not?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I want to get the obvious ones.

We are expected to get the obvious ones. That is a given. But I expect to get some that are not obvious. If I call one correctly that most people have to look at a replay to verify, that is a good call. If we only call the obvious, we are probably not calling enough.

I want everyone to basically say, "Yeah, he traveled."

There is a huge problem with this. It is not uncommon for everyone to say so when it wasn't a travel.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

We are expected to get the obvious ones. That is a given. But I expect to get some that are not obvious. If I call one correctly that most people have to look at a replay to verify, that is a good call. If we only call the obvious, we are probably not calling enough.




There is a huge problem with this. It is not uncommon for everyone to say so when it wasn't a travel.

When I say everyone, I mean everyone that has knowledge of the rules. I do not care what coaches, players or fans think are travels as they are always yelling for something that looks bad a travel. I want the most knowledgeable official in the stands to see the play live and on tape and there is no debate.

I do not want a play that was sent to the supervisor that says, "Eaaaaah, not so sure about that one."

Now that is my standard. If it is not your standard fine, but that has worked well for me in my career and fortunately not had to deal with tapes from coaches that are not backed so far.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I want the most knowledgeable official in the stands to see the play live and on tape and there is no debate.

I do not want a play that was sent to the supervisor that says, "Eaaaaah, not so sure about that one."

.....not had to deal with tapes from coaches that are not backed so far.

So your philosophy is to never call anything that is not obvious on tape to knowledgeable people. Fair enough.

But do you mean to tell me that even leaning heavily on this concept you never pass on anything which is deemed to be obvious to some or are you saying when you do miss an "obvious" one you and these other knowledgeable people think this is acceptable?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So your philosophy is to never call anything that is not obvious on tape to knowledgeable people. Fair enough.

But do you mean to tell me that even leaning heavily on this concept you never pass on anything which is deemed to be obvious to some or are you saying when you do miss an "obvious" one you and these other knowledgeable people think this is acceptable?

My philosophy is to call the obvious. That is my officiating philosophy. That is all sports and all levels. Not sure why that is hard to understand. And I did not say that there are never things that would be close, but I do not want to make a habit of calling the game with a bunch of calls that no one can understand and tape does not verify. And tape does not verify anything when you have to constantly slow down video to see what might have taken place.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My philosophy is to call the obvious. Not sure why that is hard to understand.

The question was whether this philosophy ever leads to you passing on calls which are said to be obvious by others, or if it happens but you don't consider that to be a problem.

Not sure why that is hard to understand.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The question was whether this philosophy ever leads to you passing on calls which are said to be obvious by others, or if it happens but you don't consider that to be a problem.

Not sure why that is hard to understand.

The standard is mine. I want to call things that others can see. That does not mean that others will see every call I make as clearly. I do enough presentations with a hundred people and you will be amazed on even plays we have discussed here how much disagreement there is on what should be called. I do not expect everyone to agree with every call no matter how many ways we discuss this issue.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The standard is mine.

Your standard is also to make a strong statement on one side of an issue, usually which in and of itself is sound. But when questioned on the other side of the same issue, you are repetitive and evasive and often totally ignore the question.

But that's okay.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The question was whether this philosophy ever leads to you passing on calls which are said to be obvious by others, or if it happens but you don't consider that to be a problem.

Not sure why that is hard to understand.

I'm not sure I understand what your question is or what the confusion is. Call the obvious (with the standard of "obvious" being set by those that matter). Doesn't mean one won't pass on a call that ends up being flat wrong and is obvious on tape...happens at all levels. Now if you're working at a high enough level, it shouldn't be happening often or you probably won't be working that level for too long.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

I'm not sure I understand what your question is or what the confusion is. Call the obvious (with the standard of "obvious" being set by those that matter). Doesn't mean one won't pass on a call that ends up being flat wrong and is obvious on tape...happens at all levels. Now if you're working at a high enough level, it shouldn't be happening often or you probably won't be working that level for too long.

Rut was stressing to call what is obvious and not make marginal/phantom calls which will be proved wrong by tape. I think we're all comfortable with that idea. I asked if he felt that he never missed obvious calls that did show up on the tape or if he just felt that this was less of a problem when it happened. As is often the case, he never answered.