Crash…no whistle

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is not logical defense for your statement. Especially when you said and I qoute: "[T]here's not really a place in officiating for hard-and-fast rules or absolutes on when we need a whistle or don't. The situation is, as always, fluid."

MTD, Sr.

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Probably because I'm not appealing to logic, I am appealing to experience and that is why I wrote "in all but the most rare circumstances". Johnny d said it best: "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other."

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny D is wrong! One can not make such a statement unless:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether and and infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take.

1. Mark, we are not speaking in absolutes.

2. We are making general statements on plays. We used words and phrases like "probably", "good indication", and "in all but the most rare circumstances". That leaves wiggle room because as you know Mark there is always a gray area in certain plays. That does not mean that we cannot say that from experience a certain type of play implies a certain type of result.

3. Seeing the whole play and making a decision as to the play are irrelevant to what johnny d and I are talking about. (Sorry johnny I don't mean to speak for you).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by AremRed

1. Mark, we are not speaking in absolutes.

2. We are making general statements on plays. We used words and phrases like "probably", "good indication", and "in all but the most rare circumstances". That leaves wiggle room because as you know Mark there is always a gray area in certain plays. That does not mean that we cannot say that from experience a certain type of play implies a certain type of result.

3. Seeing the whole play and making a decision as to the play are irrelevant to what johnny d and I are talking about. (Sorry johnny I don't mean to speak for you).

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

I agree that if an illegal action has taken place then, if the officials are doing their jobs correctly, that illegal action will be seen and take appropriate action.

As I stated before:

First: See the whole play.

Second: Then make a decision as to whether an infraction of the rules has occured.

Three: One and Two above most definitely are logicial actions to take. And I would further add,

Four: If you, as an official are not doing One and Two, then why in the "H E Double Hockey Sticks" are you not?

MTD, Sr.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Everything that johny d and you have said has been in favor of absolutes.

One cannot just assume that because "bodies" are on the court that a foul has occured and that somebody MUST put air in his/her whistle. This has been an idiotic philosophy that some college and H.S. assigners have promoted for years; and it panders to coaches who think that because players are on the floor there must have been a foul.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

[Pantherdreams]

There can't probably be a fouls, violations, substitutes, timeouts or any other reason to blow the whistle. If you couldn't see a travel or double dribble would you call one because the crowd reacts and you don't know how that series of actions out of your area took place? Are you blowing the whistle because a team probably needs a timeout or a sub?

If you see it call it. IF you see it outside your area and you know your colleague saw it but let it go. Let it go. IF you see it and you think your partner(S) missed it and its going to keep the game undercontrol or save the crew call it.

In all of those cases you are seeing things you clearly identify as calls. In none of those cases are you seeing something that was probably something and probably needs to be called.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

Whether or not I have seen the play and whether or not a foul was called on the play are irrelevant. Fouls happen all the time that are not penalized for a number of different reasons and fouls are called on plays where no infraction has occurred.

Yes I can make the statement that because there are bodies on the floor so there was probably a foul without believing in any fallacy. It is called statistics and there is a whole field of mathematics dedicated to it. I have seen enough plays while officiating and watching basketball to make the statement, using statistics, to say that on these plays a foul probably occurred. That statement does not in any way mean that each individual play shouldn't be judged on its merits or that there should be some default so that an official on the game automatically blows his whistle because there has to be a foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

Ding, ding, ding...we have winner. Unless you saw how they got there, two bodies on the floor is NOTHING.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny:

You are still buying into the fallacy that because there are "bodies on the floor" that there was "probably" a foul. Unless you saw what caused "bodies to be on the floor" you cannot make the statement that there was "probably" a foul. You do not know that. Either you saw a foul or you did not.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, I think he's saying that odds are, if there are bodies on the floor, there was a foul. I'm guessing video review would bear that out. I'm not sure what your disagreement is, here.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Sorry MTD, but you must be off your meds again the last few days. Nowhere have I said anything about absolutes. Nowhere have I advocated that because there are bodies on the floor that there MUST be a foul called by somebody. Most importantly, nowhere have I claimed that an official that has not seen the whole play or who would be guessing should come in an make a ruling on that play. I have very simply stated that in my experience when two bodies are on the floor, it is typically because a foul has been committed. If there wasn't a whistle on the play by the person or persons in position to make the call it means we most likely missed something. Again, we PROBABLY missed something, not definitely missed something.

VaTerp,

I think you missed this post, which addresses the relevant points (underlined and bold) of not making calls on things we don't see because of what most likely happened.