Thoughts? (video)

[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

[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.

[rockyroad]

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Not exactly.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It was not a similar play.

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

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.

[just another ref]

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

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[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.