Thoughts? (video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not necessarily, when one takes into account the time on the road for some of these D3 games.

Which is exactly what kept me out of college ball when I had the chance twenty years ago. Back then, college officials here in Connecticut were expected to travel all the way to Maine, Western Pennsylvania, and Virginia, in New England winter weather, through some of the most traffic congested areas in the Northeast. No thanks.

[STFD]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And if opposite calls on back to back "similar" plays is correct, the tape will also show this.

The tape will not show this.... We're talking about close, 50-50 plays. Presumably if you show 100 referees these plays and ask that they judge in a vacuum, nearly half will say "foul" and the other half will "no foul." So if as a crew you've got a "foul referee" on one end and a "no foul referee" on the other, we've got problems.

[Rob1968]

From a camp evaluator, years ago:
Consistency is to consistently make the calls on the actions that would / will /actually affect the game. With that in mind, it has become easier and easier, for me, to understand the judgement that makes the great officials great.
Yes, the contact that, at one point in the game, may affect the game and needs to be called, may not affect the game, at another point, and should be a no-call. I find it of value to see that the better/higher the abilities of the players, the more they understand the concept of calls/no-calls.

[SWMOzebra]

Originally Posted by just another ref

First, what if your partner made a foul call which you saw differently? Would you make the same call at the other end in the name of consistency?

How much disagreement are we talking about? Disagreement like ... my partner anticipated the contact and put a whistle on something was clearly marginal at best? Or more like, my partner had a close block/charge that could have gone either way and punched for charge?

If it's the latter of the two, then the answer is absolutely. If it's a borderline block/charge on one end and your P rings up a charge, you better have a charge on the other end IF IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH TO GO EITHER WAY.

I have on more than one occasion made a call I wouldn't normally have made for the sake of consistency. I have no doubt that my partners have done the same for me when I've made a borderline call that perhaps they disagreed with so that the crew all appear to be on the same page.

[JRutledge]

There are always going to be disagreements on calls, especially in close or marginal difference in calls.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by SWMOzebra

If it's a borderline block/charge on one end and your P rings up a charge, you better have a charge on the other end IF IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH TO GO EITHER WAY.

So now all we have to do is define which calls are "close enough to go either way."


Just call the game.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So now all we have to do is define which calls are "close enough to go either way."


Just call the game.

Not really as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be. The ability to so is expected at the college level.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Just call the game.

Good advise for newbies....

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Not really as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be.

Good advise for the more experienced official...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rookiedude

good advise for newbies....





Good advise for the more experienced official...

+1

[JetMetFan]

Here's a real-world example from my MSG experience. We had the following play in the first half:





The C -who was also our R - called the defender for a block. No problem. Not two minutes later we had a similar play at the other end, the difference being there wasn't any contact but A1 still hit the deck. None of us called anything. At halftime, the no-call was the only play the observer said he was upset with.

Now, he admitted to us he’d been sitting behind the basket at the end of the court where the first play took place so it looked exactly the same to him when it was at the other end. Our R told him about the contact situation on the second play and the observer said if he’d been sitting at midcourt his feelings might have been different but the overriding factor was it was a similar play and we didn’t come up with similar calls.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Here's a real-world example from my MSG experience. We had the following play in the first half:





The C -who was also our R - called the defender for a block. No problem. Not two minutes later we had a similar play at the other end, the difference being there wasn't any contact but A1 still hit the deck. None of us called anything. At halftime, the no-call was the only play the observer said he was upset with.

Now, he admitted to us he’d been sitting behind the basket at the end of the court where the first play took place so it looked exactly the same to him when it was at the other end. Our R told him about the contact situation on the second play and the observer said if he’d been sitting at midcourt his feelings might have been different but the overriding factor was it was a similar play and we didn’t come up with similar calls.

This kinda makes my point, doesn't it?

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This kinda makes my point, doesn't it?

How so?...

That the MORE experienced observer was "upset" that a similar play DID NOT get a similar call?

Or that the LESS experienced officials "just called the game"?

(ass-u-me ing the observer was indeed MORE experienced than the calling officials)

[BillyMac]

... for the good of the cause:

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This kinda makes my point, doesn't it?

Well, it makes the point that 3 experienced, championship-level officials knew that the 2 plays were not similar enough to require the same call.

The observer committed my pet #1 peeve of not asking what actually happened before offering a critique.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

How so?...

That the MORE experienced observer was "upset" that a similar play DID NOT get a similar call?

Or that the LESS experienced officials "just called the game"?

(ass-u-me ing the observer was indeed MORE experienced than the calling officials)

I think his point here is that the observer wanted foul called even though there was no contact at all; just because it looked similar from his vantage point as a fan. I, too, have a problem with taking it that far.

Now, if he were to question it, and then accept their answer that there was no contact; that would be ok, IMO. But to continue to claim a foul should have been called without any contact just because the play looked similar from 110 feet away; well, that's what happens when people take a valid concept too far.