Thoughts? (video)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

And if there was contact, it certainly does not mean it was a foul. All I know is I see an official with a good angle and the other with a good angle in the other end. Nothing tells me in this newer video that the officials did something incorrect.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Regarding the "Consistency" video, I would definitely have a problem with this crew is the opposite had happened, if the first play was called a foul, and if the second play was passed on. Now that's inconsistency, and that's not an example of, what we would call, "mirroring". I wouldn't throw them under the bus, but I would make sure to broach the subject at some point after the game.

[just another ref]

The call on one end has nothing to do with the call on the other end.



period

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The call on one end has nothing to do with the call on the other end.



period

In your games, for your supervisors. You definitely can't speak for my games.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

More background: Play #1 resulted in foul #5 on White #34.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How is this relevant?

I think this is relevant because this is a weak foul to give to someone for her fifth foul. It's a weak "+1" to begin with, but to send someone off in an overtime game? A foul is a foul is a foul, I know, but FWIW I think a more patient whistle and more game awareness could have been implemented here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rooster

This is a weak foul to give to someone for her fifth foul ...

I fully understand the concept, of "When in Rome ...", but this idea of making sure that a player's fifth foul, especially a star player's fifth foul, is a "real' foul is just not part of my game. We have officials on my board, mostly veterans, trained under our former, retired, interpreter, who have this same philosophy, and I have no problem with such a philosophy, but this is never a part of my game. I do try to keep track of team fouls to prepare for the one and one, and double bonus, but I never try to keep track of individual fouls. If it's illegal contact, I charge the foul, if it's incidental contact, then I pass on the call, and I don't care if you're Joe Blow, or Wilt Chamberlain. They're too many cell phones, and digital cameras, out there now compared to thirty years ago, and I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to explain a "pass" because it was the star player.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I fully understand the concept, of "When in Rome ...", but this idea of making sure that a player's fifth foul, especially a star player's fifth foul, is a "real' foul is just not part of my game. We have officials on my board, mostly veterans, trained under our former, retired, interpreter, who have this same philosophy, and I have no problem with such a philosophy, but this is never a part of my game. I do try to keep track of team fouls to prepare for the one and one, and double bonus, but I never try to keep track of individual fouls. If it's illegal contact, I charge the foul, if it's incidental contact, then I pass on the call, and I don't care if you're Joe Blow, or Wilt Chamberlain. They're too many cell phones, and digital cameras, out there now compared to thirty years ago, and I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to explain a "pass" because it was the star player.

I don't know whether or not this player was a star player, and frankly don't care if she was. I'm with you on the idea of Joe Blow and Wilt. My point is simply that this was a weak foul to be the fifth, irrespective of who it was. If this was the beginning of the game and this call was made as part of GM and an attempt to "clean it up," then I'm all for it. There was contact, sure. But clearly the offensive player played through it and white paid a heavy price.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rooster

... this was a weak foul to be the fifth ...

Rooster: What you guys do in your little part of the chicken coop is fine with me. I never have a mental list of the players that have four fouls. I'm in the majority with most of the guys, but not all of the guys, on my local board on this. If you mean that you know that this player has four and it would be a shame to call this weak foul as his fifth, then we're going to have to disagree. I make my decisions based on illegal contact, and incidental contact, not on weak versus strong, or three versus four fouls.

On the other hand, if you mean that it would be a shame for a player, star, or otherwise, to foul out on a weak foul, with no prior knowledge of foul trouble by the official, then we can agree, but again, it not a matter of weak versus strong to me, it's a matter of illegal contact versus incidental contact.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The call on one end has nothing to do with the call on the other end.



period

Perhaps that's true in your area...I've never heard any official working a high level of basketball ever suggest to call fouls/violations in a vacuum as you suggest. Not a single one.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by APG

...in a vacuum as you suggest ...

Wouldn't it be tough to breathe?

[just another ref]

Here's the deal. Explain to me how I'm wrong. Put the contact in four categories:


1. Nothing

2. Marginal contact, no advantage

3. Marginal contact, but advantage gained

4. Obvious foul


If you start calling this play based on what was called on the last play, sooner or later you will put a 3 in the 2 column or vice versa. (probably sooner) This is wrong any way you look at it. You can have 3 clean blocks in a row on one end and 3 fouls in a row on the other. It happens.

Just call the game.

[APG]

This is going to be area and maybe level dependent...but calls aren't judged in vacuum or in isolation. Close plays with marginal contact, are judged against the backdrop of what has or hasn't been called in the game.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

This is going to be area and maybe level dependent...but calls aren't judged in vacuum or in isolation. Close plays with marginal contact, are judged against the backdrop of what has or hasn't been called in the game.

The backdrop of the entire game, yes. The backdrop of the previous play, no.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The backdrop of the entire game, yes. The backdrop of the previous play, no.

This is just where we'll disagree. I've always been taught, assuming that a call/no-call wasn't a miss, that if you have one play on one end of the court, and then for all intents and purposes, a similar play on the other end, there better be a good reason for not having a similar call.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by APG

This is just where we'll disagree. I've always been taught, assuming that a call/no-call wasn't a miss, that if you have one play on one end of the court, and then for all intents and purposes, a similar play on the other end, there better be a good reason for not having a similar call.

There is no "similar call". Even though the plays may be an inch apart, they may still fall on opposite sides of the fence. The last call/no call has zero bearing on the play at hand.