Thoughts? (video)

[Raymond]

For those who say A1 travelled on the first play I say the travel was caused by the defender on the floor bumping into A1's legs.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

For those who say A1 traveled on the first play I say the travel was caused by the defender on the floor bumping into A1's legs.

I disagree, but I can see your point. If, indeed, you want to go that route, and I have no major problem with that, then make sure to not count the basket (travel before the shot, no continuation), and go with a common foul (Overtime? Maybe one and one, or double bonus?).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I disagree, but I can see your point. If, indeed, you want to go that route, and I have no major problem with that, then make sure to not count the basket (travel before the shot, no continuation), and go with a common foul (Overtime? Maybe one and one, or double bonus?).

I'm pretty confident that my D3 supervisors would had no problem with no whistle at all on this play from start to finish. However I think they would have had a problem with calling a travel on a player who got bumped. In that case they would want a common foul to be called on the player on the floor.

But I think, IMHO, that no one would have had a problem with nothing being called here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

No one would have had a problem with nothing being called here.

Sounds good.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm pretty confident that my D3 supervisors would had no problem with no whistle at all on this play from start to finish. However I think they would have had a problem with calling a travel on a player who got bumped. In that case they would want a common foul to be called on the player on the floor.

But I think, IMHO, that no one would have had a problem with nothing being called here.

Same here. I can live with a complete "play on" on Play #1 and I think my D3 supervisors would agree with yours. What I obviously can't live with is calling something that really isn't even marginal at one end but then a kid ends up on the floor 17 seconds (3 possessions) of game time later at the other end and nothing is called.

Here's a question for you, BNR, and everyone else: Put yourself in the L's shoes on Play #2. You see that play coming at you and you see the contact an the kid hits the deck. Does the thought, "I need to put a whistle on this, even if it's late, given what happened at the other end" go through your head?

Regardless of the answer I can see how it might because I can't say I wouldn't go through mine.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Here's a question for you, BNR, and everyone else: Put yourself in the L's shoes on Play #2. You see that play coming at you and you see the contact an the kid hits the deck. Does the thought, "I need to put a whistle on this, even if it's late, given what happened at the other end" go through your head?

I cannot as the L how you really see the entire play from that position. I think the C has to get this. I am not someone who just likes to call a foul just because a player goes to the floor. Yes I might call a foul if I see the entire play, but this looks like and off balance player that hits the floor. I certainly would not be mad if someone called a foul here, I just think it was suspect.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Given what happened at the other end" go through your head?

I try to look at each play individually, and make I my decision based, pretty much, on that. One exception involves the concept of "mirroring". Something that I, or my partner, called "X" down the other end, or even on this end, during any part of the game, should also be "X" by the other official, or by the same official, on either end, in another part of the game.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

...

Here's a question for you, BNR, and everyone else: Put yourself in the L's shoes on Play #2. You see that play coming at you and you see the contact an the kid hits the deck. Does the thought, "I need to put a whistle on this, even if it's late, given what happened at the other end" go through your head?

Regardless of the answer I can see how it might because I can't say I wouldn't go through mine.

I attended an instructional camp ran by NBA officials this summer. They had a play on video where there is shot block on a lay-up with some contact and no-call. It leads to a fast break the other way, the video is stopped during the fast break and we are asked what the new Lead should be thinking. We finish watching the play and Lead calls an And-1 foul on very little contact on the ensuing lay-up.

The answer to the question to what the new Lead should be thinking was "I can't have a foul for marginal contact on my end." So according to the big boys we should be taking account to what is called on the other end of the court.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot as the L how you really see the entire play from that position. I think the C has to get this. I am not someone who just likes to call a foul just because a player goes to the floor. Yes I might call a foul if I see the entire play, but this looks like and off balance player that hits the floor. I certainly would not be mad if someone called a foul here, I just think it was suspect.

Peace

Fair point on seeing the whole play here and I'm not someone who likes to call contact just because someone hits the floor either but watching the L's positioning it appears as though he saw the play and if he didn't he should have. The secondary defender - the big who came over - is his responsibility.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The answer to the question to what the new Lead should be thinking was "I can't have a foul for marginal contact on my end." So according to the big boys we should be taking account to what is called on the other end of the court.

Which, IMO, is a good answer. So on this play if you're seeing the contact and "that wasn't marginal" is what registers in your head then whistle should go. Meaning if the L followed that thought process he felt the contact on Play 2 was either marginal or he wasn't sure. The lack of a call still has me scratching my head especially since I watched the entire game and saw the quality of calls up to that point.

I guess another question given what they told you at the camp is would the flip side be true, meaning given what happened 17 seconds before should the L be thinking “if there’s a 50-50 here I should take it”?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Shot block on a lay-up with some contact and no-call .. leads to a fast break the other way ... new Lead should be thinking ... "I can't have a foul for marginal contact on my end." So according to the big boys we should be taking account to what is called on the other end of the court.

Exactly. Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, the "little boys" call that "mirroring".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

...

I guess another question given what they told you at the camp is would the flip side be true, meaning given what happened 17 second before should the L be thinking “if there’s a 50-50 here I should take it”?

On that 2nd play they would have expected the C to step down with the play and have a whistle on that play or the Lead to have a cadence whistle when he realized the C didn't blow.

But to your specific question, I would think yes, they would have expected us to be cataloguing plays within that short of a timeframe, especially in the last minute of an overtime game.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The answer to the question to what the new Lead should be thinking was "I can't have a foul for marginal contact on my end." So according to the big boys we should be taking account to what is called on the other end of the court.

So kinda like this video?

[JRutledge]

Actually the video does not show anything about consistency at all. Neither play is the same and the first shooter took on two defenders and appeared to get blocked. I really hate it when we think consistency is just because we call something at one end, we think the very next play is the same type of play. Each play should be evaluated differently no matter what we have called.

Peace

[BillyMac]

AremRed: Great "Consistency" video. Thanks.

I'm not sure that I see a foul on the first play, but I think I see a foul in the second play. I'm for consistency, or "mirroring", in a game, but this might be one situation, in my game, where there's going to be no foul on one end, and a foul called on the other end. Assuming that there was no illegal contact, on the first play, it's tough to ignore illegal contact, assumng it occurred, on the second play. To me, consistency means calling X on one end, and calling X down the other end (go ahead an substitute official for end), whereas this video might actually be showing X and Y. In real time, tougher calls on both ends than in "go back and look again" videos. I wouldn't be throwing these two officials under the bus if I were working with them, or observing them. At the most (or worst), I might question them with a, "So, what did you see on those two plays?".

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

So kinda like this video?

No, not the same. 1st play was a block with no contact, 2nd definitely had contact.