Michigan-Louisville shooting foul clip (Hancock/Burke 1st half)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by #olderthanilook

You've posted each quote outside of their context, but in the end, I suppose my answer to your question is "both".



I'm ok with you using results driven officiating (or whatever it's called these days). But, I'm not comfortable with it. If I can't explain (see) how a player's shot was affected, or how a player became displaced, etc etc...I'm not calling it.

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.

It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

[#olderthanilook]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think Camron's point is that absent evidence that says the officials were wrong (you've said it was inconclusive), 1: he's going to defer to the officials on the court. That's not the same things as what you here refer to as "results driven officiating." 2: I assume by that you mean something along the lines of calling a foul because you see a player holding his eye, so you assume he was poked by the defender. That's not what Camron is suggesting.It's possible the official saw something you can't see on camera, and the video evidence (according to Camron) supports it even if it doesn't confirm it.

1 I'm more than good with that.

2 That's what I thought CR was saying.