Thoughts? (video)

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by 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.

Couple of questions.

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?


Also, if you have a foul on one end, followed by equal or greater contact on the other end, it goes without saying that it should also be a foul.

But what if the contact on the second play is slightly less? It may still be similar.

Lines must be drawn.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Couple of questions.

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?


Also, if you have a foul on one end, followed by equal or greater contact on the other end, it goes without saying that it should also be a foul.

But what if the contact on the second play is slightly less? It may still be similar.

Lines must be drawn.

This is why you get paid the big bucks. You have to decide what happened in other plays if you want to work that level? Why, because there is tape that will either show you somehow help decide if you are calling what is appropriate. Again this is one of many things that separate the guy that works HS and feels we should call everything to the college guy that had to make decisions that fall into a larger philosophy. And as a HS official not many games have great tape on plays. At the college level tape is used to evaluate almost everything.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why, because there is tape that will either show you somehow help decide if you are calling what is appropriate.

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

[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

[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.