Thoughts? (video)
 

Background: Two plays from the NCAAW D2 Final 8.

<iframe width="720" height="540" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TuLYgkMCKqM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

#1-traveling
#2-foul on the initial shot,good no call on the screen up top

1. Traveling
   
2. I can see the no call or not a foul on the shot. It looks like the player got to the floor. I am good with what went on on this play.

Peace

More background: Play #1 resulted in foul #5 on White #34.

On the second play, the contact on the shot is C's call. C is way too high to get a good look.

Play 1, either a travel or nothing. Don't see anyway for a shooting foul to be called on this play.

Play 2, I agree with Jrut and like the no call. I am sure white coach is thinking he/she just got screwed though with the crap-ass foul call on the other end and then nothing here.

How is this relevant?

I think it is a weak foul on the first play. On top of that, you can't get both the foul and the shot. It isn't continuous motion to turn, get fouled, pull the ball down and square up before going up for the shot. If the C insists on calling that foul, they can't give the shot too.

On the 2nd play, protect the shooter. The defender hipchecked the shooter to the floor before the shooter came down.

The first play, the slot is clearly calling the contact that occurs on he shooter's left arm (for the defender, in the official's judgement, violating verticality). Now whether that is a foul or not is another question, but the contact that is whistled is definitely during the shot.

Travel in play 1. Also no foul in play 1. Foul in play 2. Gotta get a foul like that.

In my judgement, I'd say they went 0/3 in the video.

That didn't even register as a possible foul to me.

Make it as relevant as you want or not relevant at all. I'm just providing background information.

thoughts on thoughts
 

My $0.02 worth...

Play #1: The C assumed there was going to be contact so the called the first thing she saw.

Play #2: At a camp last year a pretty good official told me the following when I no-called a similar play...at this level when a player is airborne heading in one direction and then they change direction drastically, chances are they didn't do it on their own.

There's also an ant vs. elephant component to these two. C called an ant that really wasn't there on one end but then C and L - since he didn't pinch the paint - let the elephant go by at the other end.

Two Plays, Two Cents ...
 

1) Traveling. Easy peasey lemon squeezy.

2) Foul (Poor coaching, defender used wrong hand to block the ball, which resulted in "enough" contact on the airborne shooter to charge the foul).

Easy to call on videotape. I have no major problem with the calls made on the court in "real time". We all miss some, some more than others, but we all miss some.

1) I have nothing, especially since the little contact that occurred came on the non-shooting arm.

2) Lead should have a secondary whistle on the play. C should have had a primary whistle but she took herself totally out of the play with here initial positioning. She was all worried about A1 when she was 30 feet from the basket but then when A1 drives to the basket the C is nowhere to be found.

For those who say A1 travelled on the first play I say the travel was caused by the defender on the floor bumping into A1's legs.

Different Take ???
 

I disagree, but I can see your point. If, indeed, you want to go that route, and I have no major problem with that, then make sure to not count the basket (travel before the shot, no continuation), and go with a common foul (Overtime? Maybe one and one, or double bonus?).

I'm pretty confident that my D3 supervisors would had no problem with no whistle at all on this play from start to finish. However I think they would have had a problem with calling a travel on a player who got bumped. In that case they would want a common foul to be called on the player on the floor.

But I think, IMHO, that no one would have had a problem with nothing being called here.

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie ...
 

Sounds good.

Same here. I can live with a complete "play on" on Play #1 and I think my D3 supervisors would agree with yours. What I obviously can't live with is calling something that really isn't even marginal at one end but then a kid ends up on the floor 17 seconds (3 possessions) of game time later at the other end and nothing is called.

Here's a question for you, BNR, and everyone else: Put yourself in the L's shoes on Play #2. You see that play coming at you and you see the contact an the kid hits the deck. Does the thought, "I need to put a whistle on this, even if it's late, given what happened at the other end" go through your head?

Regardless of the answer I can see how it might because I can't say I wouldn't go through mine.

I cannot as the L how you really see the entire play from that position. I think the C has to get this. I am not someone who just likes to call a foul just because a player goes to the floor. Yes I might call a foul if I see the entire play, but this looks like and off balance player that hits the floor. I certainly would not be mad if someone called a foul here, I just think it was suspect.

Peace

Consistency ...
 

I try to look at each play individually, and make I my decision based, pretty much, on that. One exception involves the concept of "mirroring". Something that I, or my partner, called "X" down the other end, or even on this end, during any part of the game, should also be "X" by the other official, or by the same official, on either end, in another part of the game.

I attended an instructional camp ran by NBA officials this summer. They had a play on video where there is shot block on a lay-up with some contact and no-call. It leads to a fast break the other way, the video is stopped during the fast break and we are asked what the new Lead should be thinking. We finish watching the play and Lead calls an And-1 foul on very little contact on the ensuing lay-up.

The answer to the question to what the new Lead should be thinking was "I can't have a foul for marginal contact on my end." So according to the big boys we should be taking account to what is called on the other end of the court.

Fair point on seeing the whole play here and I'm not someone who likes to call contact just because someone hits the floor either but watching the L's positioning it appears as though he saw the play and if he didn't he should have. The secondary defender - the big who came over - is his responsibility.


Which, IMO, is a good answer. So on this play if you're seeing the contact and "that wasn't marginal" is what registers in your head then whistle should go. Meaning if the L followed that thought process he felt the contact on Play 2 was either marginal or he wasn't sure. The lack of a call still has me scratching my head especially since I watched the entire game and saw the quality of calls up to that point.

I guess another question given what they told you at the camp is would the flip side be true, meaning given what happened 17 seconds before should the L be thinking “if there’s a 50-50 here I should take it”?

Who's The Fairest Of Them All ???
 

Exactly. Here, in my little corner of Connecticut, the "little boys" call that "mirroring".

On that 2nd play they would have expected the C to step down with the play and have a whistle on that play or the Lead to have a cadence whistle when he realized the C didn't blow.

But to your specific question, I would think yes, they would have expected us to be cataloguing plays within that short of a timeframe, especially in the last minute of an overtime game.

So kinda like this video?

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yGs5ykPfZS0?rel=0&start=5" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Actually the video does not show anything about consistency at all. Neither play is the same and the first shooter took on two defenders and appeared to get blocked. I really hate it when we think consistency is just because we call something at one end, we think the very next play is the same type of play. Each play should be evaluated differently no matter what we have called.

Peace

Thought Provoking ...
 

AremRed: Great "Consistency" video. Thanks.

I'm not sure that I see a foul on the first play, but I think I see a foul in the second play. I'm for consistency, or "mirroring", in a game, but this might be one situation, in my game, where there's going to be no foul on one end, and a foul called on the other end. Assuming that there was no illegal contact, on the first play, it's tough to ignore illegal contact, assumng it occurred, on the second play. To me, consistency means calling X on one end, and calling X down the other end (go ahead an substitute official for end), whereas this video might actually be showing X and Y. In real time, tougher calls on both ends than in "go back and look again" videos. I wouldn't be throwing these two officials under the bus if I were working with them, or observing them. At the most (or worst), I might question them with a, "So, what did you see on those two plays?".

No, not the same. 1st play was a block with no contact, 2nd definitely had contact.

And if there was contact, it certainly does not mean it was a foul. All I know is I see an official with a good angle and the other with a good angle in the other end. Nothing tells me in this newer video that the officials did something incorrect.

Peace

Peppermint Twist ...
 

Regarding the "Consistency" video, I would definitely have a problem with this crew is the opposite had happened, if the first play was called a foul, and if the second play was passed on. Now that's inconsistency, and that's not an example of, what we would call, "mirroring". I wouldn't throw them under the bus, but I would make sure to broach the subject at some point after the game.

The call on one end has nothing to do with the call on the other end.



period

In your games, for your supervisors. You definitely can't speak for my games.

I think this is relevant because this is a weak foul to give to someone for her fifth foul. It's a weak "+1" to begin with, but to send someone off in an overtime game? A foul is a foul is a foul, I know, but FWIW I think a more patient whistle and more game awareness could have been implemented here.

But He's Our Star Player ...
 

I fully understand the concept, of "When in Rome ...", but this idea of making sure that a player's fifth foul, especially a star player's fifth foul, is a "real' foul is just not part of my game. We have officials on my board, mostly veterans, trained under our former, retired, interpreter, who have this same philosophy, and I have no problem with such a philosophy, but this is never a part of my game. I do try to keep track of team fouls to prepare for the one and one, and double bonus, but I never try to keep track of individual fouls. If it's illegal contact, I charge the foul, if it's incidental contact, then I pass on the call, and I don't care if you're Joe Blow, or Wilt Chamberlain. They're too many cell phones, and digital cameras, out there now compared to thirty years ago, and I don't want to be put in a situation where I have to explain a "pass" because it was the star player.

I don't know whether or not this player was a star player, and frankly don't care if she was. I'm with you on the idea of Joe Blow and Wilt. My point is simply that this was a weak foul to be the fifth, irrespective of who it was. If this was the beginning of the game and this call was made as part of GM and an attempt to "clean it up," then I'm all for it. There was contact, sure. But clearly the offensive player played through it and white paid a heavy price.

Some Common Ground ...
 

Rooster: What you guys do in your little part of the chicken coop is fine with me. I never have a mental list of the players that have four fouls. I'm in the majority with most of the guys, but not all of the guys, on my local board on this. If you mean that you know that this player has four and it would be a shame to call this weak foul as his fifth, then we're going to have to disagree. I make my decisions based on illegal contact, and incidental contact, not on weak versus strong, or three versus four fouls.

On the other hand, if you mean that it would be a shame for a player, star, or otherwise, to foul out on a weak foul, with no prior knowledge of foul trouble by the official, then we can agree, but again, it not a matter of weak versus strong to me, it's a matter of illegal contact versus incidental contact.

Perhaps that's true in your area...I've never heard any official working a high level of basketball ever suggest to call fouls/violations in a vacuum as you suggest. Not a single one.

Monday's Attempt At Humor ...
 

Wouldn't it be tough to breathe?

Here's the deal. Explain to me how I'm wrong. Put the contact in four categories:


1. Nothing

2. Marginal contact, no advantage

3. Marginal contact, but advantage gained

4. Obvious foul


If you start calling this play based on what was called on the last play, sooner or later you will put a 3 in the 2 column or vice versa. (probably sooner) This is wrong any way you look at it. You can have 3 clean blocks in a row on one end and 3 fouls in a row on the other. It happens.

Just call the game.

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.

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.

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

As you go up the ladder some would call this a matter of game awareness or, in the case of not knowing how many fouls certain players have, a lack of it. I hear it every year at camps: "Be aware of who has four fouls." As I've moved up I know I have a better idea of who has what, especially if I called one or two of the fouls on that player. Does it mean someone - star or otherwise - won't get dinged if they commit a foul? Of course not, but I'd like to think that foul wouldn't have been what I called to DQ someone.

An extra bit of background: that young lady happened to be her team's leading scorer and rebounder in that game (20/11) and had scored all of her team's points in overtime (either six or eight). I may not know how much she had for the game but I darn sure would've noticed she was scoring all her team's points in the OT. I'm not saying I would "cheat" and avoid giving her a foul she didn't deserve but if she's going to foul out you'd hope it would be a Stevie Wonder-type call anyone could see.

As I said earlier, the whole issue is compounded by the fact the guard on White got knocked down at the other end...a play which, interestingly enough, would've resulted in the big girl's fifth foul.

In an NCAA basetball game, you foul the star player out on that call from the video, you're getting a personal phone call from your supervisor.

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.

Chutes And Ladders ...
 

I've already been up the high school ladder, and I loved the view from up there. Now, at my age, it's, hopefully, going to be slow trip back down the ladder, and hopefully, I don't fall off the ladder.

I've always lived by this quote: "It pays to be nice to the people you meet on the way up, for they are the same people you meet on the way down."(Walter Winchell)

I've been nice to people on the way up. I hope that they're nice to me now that I'm on the way down.

I was refereeing to officiating in general, not on that specific play, but your answer still makes me glad that I'm just a high school official. We seldom get any phone calls like this, in fact, it's usually us making the phone call to our assigner, usually to give him a heads up as to why we may have tossed a coach, or a player, if any phone calls are made at all. On my level, high school varsity, we would never get a phone call about a specific foul call, even if it fouled out the best player in that state. Pressure, and accountability. That's why you college guys make the big bucks, and you deserve them.

Big bucks.......funny, real funny, you obviously haven't seen a D3 check in some time. Not exactly big bucks for those games.

Big Bucks ??? I Guess That It's All Relative ...
 

I've never seen a D3 check, but it's got to be bigger than the $89.76 that I get for doing a high school game? And we don't get mileage. If we're lucky, we get a warm bottle of water at halftime. One bottle that we split, two ways, two, remember, we're the Land That Time Forgot.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Peace

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.

Good advise for newbies....



Good advise for the more experienced official...

+1

Real-world example (video)
 

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


<iframe width="840" height="630" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pajSfqcK9w8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


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?

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 Found This On My Hard Drive ...
 

... 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

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.

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.

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 ;)

I disagree (on the 2nd situation). I even disagree in the "real world" of officiating. If I see someone come across the lane both late and from a poor position and cause enough contact to send an airborne shooter the shooter to the floor, they're getting a foul.

I’m with you on Play #1 but to follow up Camron’s point, why no whistle on Play #2? The player who hit the deck was still an airborne shooter when contact was made and the secondary defender definitely did not have LGP. Doesn’t a “real world” application of the rules include protecting the shooter all the way back down to the floor?

Is it possible the L saw the player getting the rebound and did not want to take points off the board?

Shouldn't be an issue. Suppose the L thought A2 was getting the rebound then it bounced off A2's hands OOB? If you feel the contact earned A1 FTs, then give her the FTs.