Do you guess?

[HokiePaul]

assuming a foul that didn't happen can get you in just as much hot water as missing a foul. I'm not going to assume a foul if I saw nothing.

However, if I saw something (but not everything), I'd be more inclined to make an assumption. For example, if I saw what looked like minimal contact but then the player goes down, I might have a foul (assuming that contact may have been worse than what I saw). But like I said, if I saw no contact and a player went down, I've got nothing.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

For example, if I saw what looked like minimal contact but then the player goes down, I might have a foul (assuming that contact may have been worse than what I saw). But like I said, if I saw no contact and a player went down, I've got nothing.

1) How "minimal" the contact was has very little to do whether it was a foul. If a player goes down, then the contact caused a disadvantage and should be a foul. You don't need to assume the contact was worse than you saw.

2) Seeing no contact is different from not seeing contact. It's the latter that's being discussed.

[pfan1981]

I had a similar situation last night. I was the T on a backcourt throw-in under the hoop. She inbounds and a quick pass and the ball is at the 3 point line on the other side. There is a block/charge situation, there was contact initiated by the dribbler, did the defense have LGP......ugh!

I was hustling down the floor, but was in no position to make the call. 2 person crew, so my partner was on the baseline, but had girls between him and the play. I no called it. And the coach let me know it, I explained that I didn't have a good enough look at it.

Was I right to no call this?

pfan

ps, this is why you need 3 person

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1) How "minimal" the contact was has very little to do whether it was a foul. If a player goes down, then the contact caused a disadvantage and should be a foul. You don't need to assume the contact was worse than you saw.

Understand this point. However, contact, followed by a player going down doesn't always mean that it should be a foul. It happens quite frequently that a defender attempts to draw a charge by exagerating the effect of contact. If the official sees the whole play clearly, we would have no call. My point was the same here. If I thought that the contact was minimal, and then the player goes down, you have to make an assumption. Either 1) the player went down on his/her own or exagerated the contact or 2) the contact was what caused the player to go down. In this case, I'm generally assuming option 2. In other cases (e.g. a block/charge situation), I might assume option 1.

[twocentsworth]

Don't. Ever. Guess.....ever.

[Welpe]

I take this philosophy from football but I think it applies in basketball also.

It is better to miss a foul than to incorrectly call one that isn't there. Don't guess.

Although the OP's play is across the court from T (new Lead), new Trail should have a better angle and could come get this.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Don't. Ever. Guess.....ever.

Easy to say.

At times, especially working 2-person, I do not have the look I would really like to have. I'm not going to pass on something I'm 95% certain is a foul only because I don't have the angle I would like in a perfect world.

Have I called trips where I didn't specifically see a leg hit a leg? Yes, I have. Has it bitten me in the behind? Not yet.

Maybe I'm wrong in calling this a "guess." Is it the look I'd like to have? No. Do I feel I have enough pieces of the puzzle to make the picture? Yes.

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Rich

Easy to say.

At times, especially working 2-person, I do not have the look I would really like to have. I'm not going to pass on something I'm 95% certain is a foul only because I don't have the angle I would like in a perfect world.

Have I called trips where I didn't specifically see a leg hit a leg? Yes, I have. Has it bitten me in the behind? Not yet.

Maybe I'm wrong in calling this a "guess." Is it the look I'd like to have? No. Do I feel I have enough pieces of the puzzle to make the picture? Yes.

On April 5, 2010, Duke defeated Butler 61-59 in the NCAA Championship Game (remember the Butler half-cout shot that almost went in?). NCAA-M Officiating "Boss" John Adams reviewed the game tape and made some interesting discoveries:
1) when the officials had a whistle, their call accuracy was 90%
2) when they did not have a whistle, their call accuracy was 50%
3) he found that the reason why the crew of John Cahill, Tom Eades, & Ted Valentine did not blow their whistle on those specific plays was because THEY COULD NOT CLEARLY SEE THE PLAY (they simply weren't going to guess).

As a result, Adams has became convinced that:
A) the best officials HAVE to be mobile enough to be in position to see the plays (older, heavier, slower, etc. officials have seen a dramatic decrease in their assignments).
b) when you guess, you are really only 50% right.

Rich, if you want to classify 95% sure as a "guess", go ahead...I don't think that is what the thread is referring to.....

[deecee]

In 2 man as the trail you have to move towards the center of the court to get an angle at plays in your primary on the opposite side of the court. There are times I have found myself in the half court circle.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

On April 5, 2010, Duke defeated Butler 61-59 in the NCAA Championship Game (remember the Butler half-cout shot that almost went in?). NCAA-M Officiating "Boss" John Adams reviewed the game tape and made some interesting discoveries:
1) when the officials had a whistle, their call accuracy was 90%
2) when they did not have a whistle, their call accuracy was 50%
3) he found that the reason why the crew of John Cahill, Tom Eades, & Ted Valentine did not blow their whistle on those specific plays was because THEY COULD NOT CLEARLY SEE THE PLAY (they simply weren't going to guess).

As a result, Adams has became convinced that:
A) the best officials HAVE to be mobile enough to be in position to see the plays (older, heavier, slower, etc. officials have seen a dramatic decrease in their assignments).
b) when you guess, you are really only 50% right.

Rich, if you want to classify 95% sure as a "guess", go ahead...I don't think that is what the thread is referring to.....

I know it's not. But when does something become a guess? Is it 100% or 0% sure or is there a gray area in-between?

Mobility is a strange thing. There are cases of people not being able to move quickly enough and there are cases of people who officiate with nails in their shoes who, for whatever reason, DON'T move. In HS games, you see plenty of both.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

As a result, Adams has became convinced that:
A) the best officials HAVE to be mobile enough to be in position to see the plays (older, heavier, slower, etc. officials have seen a dramatic decrease in their assignments).

Unfortunately for John Adams, he has absolutely no control over the number or quality of assignments any official gets during the regular season.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

Don't. Ever. Guess.....ever.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we've been strongly encouraged to have a whistle on a train wreck, even if we have to guess. I real feel awkward doing this, but I'm not in charge.