Video Request - Syracuse vs Duke (Video)

My question: based on Roger Ayers earlier block call on what probably should have been a PC, should Tony Green have called a block on the final play?

Certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but in the name of consistency?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My question: based on Roger Ayers earlier block call on what probably should have been a PC, should Tony Green have called a block on the final play?

Certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but in the name of consistency?

Do you change how you make a call based on a single call 10 minutes earlier? Personally, I think this would be a horrible way to officiate. I take every game one play at a time and I can't imagine guys at the top of the profession doing anything different.

2 wrongs wouldn't make a right.

(3 rights, however, make a left.)

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Rich

Do you change how you make a call based on a single call 10 minutes earlier? Personally, I think this would be a horrible way to officiate. I take every game one play at a time and I can't imagine guys at the top of the profession doing anything different.

2 wrongs wouldn't make a right.

(3 rights, however, make a left.)

At the beginning of my season, my conference supervisor and a regional observer watched my game. After the game, they came into the locker room and told the crew:

"To succeed at the higher levels of college basketball, you have to understand the feel and dynamics of the game. Calls and non-calls at one end of the floor deserve the similar calls and non-calls at the other end of the floor when the plays are similar."

When the boss and an observer tell you this, then you do as they say.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

At the beginning of my season, my conference supervisor and a regional observer watched my game. After the game, they came into the locker room and told the crew:

"To succeed at the higher levels of college basketball, you have to understand the feel and dynamics of the game. Calls and non-calls at one end of the floor deserve the similar calls and non-calls at the other end of the floor when the plays are similar."

When the boss and an observer tell you this, then you do as they say.

What is implied in that statement is the word "correct" calls and "correct" non-calls with "correct" being subjective in some cases. If you totally kick one at one end, that philosophy is not saying you should kick it at the other.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

Calls and non-calls at one end of the floor deserve the similar calls and non-calls at the other end of the floor when the plays are similar."

This logic is flawed, no matter who said it. Two plays can be very similar and still be on opposite sides of a line.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This logic is flawed, no matter who said it. Two plays can be very similar and still be on opposite sides of a line.

When someone has a position to integrate a philosophy throughout the officiating landscape to bring continuity for all regions, I believe it is upon us to work on implementing this way of thinking.

If we as officials are closed minded to a different way of thinking, there can never be a continuity in officiating across the country; which perpetuates the stereotype that the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC officiate differently. This is something that John Adams is trying his best to eliminate.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

When someone has a position to integrate a philosophy throughout the officiating landscape to bring continuity for all regions, I believe it is upon us to work on implementing this way of thinking.

If we as officials are closed minded to a different way of thinking, there can never be a continuity in officiating across the country; which perpetuates the stereotype that the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC officiate differently. This is something that John Adams is trying his best to eliminate.

To properly implement the philosophy requires understanding the philosophy in the first place. It is not about being closed minded. It is simply about understanding what that philosophy really means. It has nothing to do with deliberately calling a foul wrong because one a few minutes before was called incorrectly.

And even if it isn't about one being wrong vs. right, there has to be a line somewhere and at some point, one play will have gone just a little bit too far.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

When someone has a position to integrate a philosophy throughout the officiating landscape to bring continuity for all regions, I believe it is upon us to work on implementing this way of thinking.

If we as officials are closed minded to a different way of thinking, there can never be a continuity in officiating across the country; which perpetuates the stereotype that the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC officiate differently. This is something that John Adams is trying his best to eliminate.

You just said a lot but none of it does anything to dispute, or even to address what I said. The importance of consistency cannot be overstated. But to say that similar plays should result in similar calls is much too broad a statement to be useful, in my opinion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

If we as officials are closed minded to a different way of thinking, there can never be a continuity in officiating across the country; which perpetuates the stereotype that the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, SEC officiate differently. This is something that John Adams is trying his best to eliminate.

Anyone that knows much about college basketball knows that many of the officials work 2, 3, or even 4 of those conferences (less so with the PAC due to location). So the notion that the operate independent from one another is a fallacy.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Anyone that knows much about college basketball knows that many of the officials work 2, 3, or even 4 of those conferences (less so with the PAC due to location). So the notion that the operate independent from one another is a fallacy.

They operate independant of each other if they have different supervisors. These guys have to adjust to that night's supervisor.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by AremRed

My question: based on Roger Ayers earlier block call on what probably should have been a PC, should Tony Green have called a block on the final play?

Certainly two wrongs don't make a right, but in the name of consistency?

That just makes you consistently wrong. It's better to kick a call than to kick all of them in the name of consistency.