Interesting conversation. Seems like we have two different ways of looking at this theory. Most of us understand that similar plays should be called in a similar manner. Some are taking that to mean that plays that LOOK similar should be called in a similar manner. Two very different things, imho. JMF's observer is a perfect example. To him, the plays LOOKED similar, but they really weren't and the crew handled it correctly.

Yes, the whole concept is meaningless. It was a similar play. It did not get a call. All this was correctly done.

Sure, as a rule, similar plays get the same call. But there are always exceptions, and the exception is just as likely to occur on the next possession as it is an hour later.


Just call the game.

It was not a similar play.

It might have looked similar, but it was not similar.

Not exactly.

Exactly. I understand jar's point; to a point.

The fact is taking a good concept too far is always a problem. Similar plays should have the same result; but the only ones who can define "similar" are the ones in our position on the court; not the coaches. And, unfortunately, not the observer sitting half a football field away from the call.

The whole problem is the use of the word similar.


Similar is a broad term.



Individual plays are not painted with a broad brush.



Moreover, reflecting on the last play, similar or not, to make the call at hand is at best, unnecessary, and possibly troublesome.

jmo

Agreed.

And I agree with JAR to an extent also.

Call the game. Let the argument about similar calls be made during film review, learn from that, and be better next time you go out there.

All calls are going to be evaluated anyway on tape. But when you have a call at one end and immediately on the other end, you better know why things were called or not called. You will have a result that will be more likely evaluated a lot closer.

And in this day and age with games on video, there are certain moments that will bring more scrutiny then others. I do not think it is that hard to recognize this. If it did not matter then why do coaches ask, "That was not a foul on the other end?" You think they are not going to go review the tape?

Peace

Yes, it's a broad term. It's meant to be. It's also not good advice for new officials. Those who are capable of understanding when to apply it, though....

The fact that some people don't grasp it well doesn't mean it's not valid.

This is what I was getting at. Remember, our observer/assigner did say if he’d been sitting at midcourt he might have felt differently. There’s no way to know because he wasn’t. However in his view from where he was sitting it looked as though we all suffered brain lock on the second play. Believe me, he relaxed once the situation was explained but we knew where he was coming from and, more importantly, he knew we were aware of why he said it.

When the second play happened and no one’s whistle went off – I was T on both plays – my first thought was, “We’re going to hear about this at halftime.” There wasn’t any sense of dread but more in the vein of let’s have a valid explanation as to why there wasn’t a call on the second play as opposed to “we missed it.”

We do not give newer officials the credit to understand things because we were inept when we started. Some individuals that are newer, coaches and played the game before they became officials. Many of them that did understand a lot of things quicker then those that might not have. It does not mean that is an automatic, but if you understand the thinking of a coach or a player when you do this, you might grasp a concept of what to do inside of that game a lot quicker.

And forget the college level, if you do not understand that concept at the high school level, you will not work certain conferences, tournaments or even the varsity level at all. At the very least a play like this in the OP, you would have to defend why one was a foul and not the other. And that explanation is going to be more then what is shown on tape.

Peace

Amen to that. Play #1 in the OP was going to be a tough sell to an observer/assigner – or in this case, the person who assigns the D2 NCAAW tournament – to begin with. To follow it up with the non-call at the other end and you have issues. That’s two plays in the last 40 seconds of OT in an NCAA tournament game that you have to explain. Not an enviable position to be in.

I thought "we missed it" was a valid explanation. :D

I have no problem with the concept or its application. And working for several supervisors and a multitude of partners I'm expected to recognize what is and isn't similar for that game.

I know I'm "late to the party" here.....but in the "real world" of officiating, neither of these plays deserve a whistle. The practical application of the rules that apply in these two plays mean that the officials acted appropriately in NOT having a whistle......

I'll let the forum return to its semantical argument over "similar" and other frivolous thoughts.

Uh, there was a whistle on the first play, which most folks agreed should not have been a whistle. So you are 1 for 2 on observatory skills ;)