Thoughts? (video)

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Tell that to my college supervisors or the NBA refs I've met.

[STFD]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

My judgement's not good enough to judge plays that are inches apart. I'm with APG - it's best not to judge these plays in a vacuum and call similar plays similarly. Either way, this is a great discussion.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by STFD

My judgement's not good enough to judge plays that are inches apart. I'm with APG - it's best not to judge these plays in a vacuum and call similar plays similarly. Either way, this is a great discussion.

Whether it's good enough or not, that's still what you have to do.

According to what you're saying, here is what I see.

Foul called on one end. Next play slightly less contact, but similar. So it still has to be a foul. Next play even less contact, but still similar.

etc.

Any way you look at it, this philosophy will eventually cause something to be called wrong.

[OKREF]

Had an evaluator at camp put it like this. We need to be consistent as a crew. If we have a foul on one end, then when we go to the other end if we have contact that is either equal to or greater than what was just called, you need to have a call. Conversely, if we pass on some marginal contact, then on the other end if the contact is equal to or less, then we should have a no call. Now obviously he was talking about successive trips down the floor, not 3,4,5 trips after.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Whether it's good enough or not, that's still what you have to do.

According to what you're saying, here is what I see.

Foul called on one end. Next play slightly less contact, but similar. So it still has to be a foul. Next play even less contact, but still similar.

etc.

Any way you look at it, this philosophy will eventually cause something to be called wrong.

The ability to properly execute this philosophy gets officials hired on to college staffs.

[STFD]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Whether it's good enough or not, that's still what you have to do.

According to what you're saying, here is what I see.

Foul called on one end. Next play slightly less contact, but similar. So it still has to be a foul. Next play even less contact, but still similar.

etc.

Any way you look at it, this philosophy will eventually cause something to be called wrong.

I suppose that this philosophy combined with the back-to-back-to-back scenario that you cite could lead one down a slippery slope that ends up at an incorrect call. However, I have yet to see it. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of examples where similar back-to-back plays are called differently - leaving coaches, players, fans, partners, and supervisors scratching their heads. For a crew made up of officials with different play calling perspectives, I think the philosophy helps us remain more consistent across the crew. For me, it helps me focus and stay away from particularly boneheaded decisions.