Crash…no whistle

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

Johnny D:

You are correct about the using the word "probably" in this discussion. We should be using the word "possibly". Probabilites do not apply in deciding whether a foul was committed or not. I know that because as a structural engineer with a double major in civil and mechanical engineering and a minor in matheatics, I have taken courses in mathematical statistics and modern physics.

Still you and too many officials are buying into the mind set that there because there are "bodies on the floor" there was a "possible" foul.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Johnny D:

You are correct about the using the word "probably" in this discussion. We should be using the word "possibly". Probabilites do not apply in deciding whether a foul was committed or not. I know that because as a structural engineer with a double major in civil and mechanical engineering and a minor in matheatics, I have taken courses in mathematical statistics and modern physics.

Still you and too many officials are buying into the mind set that there because there are "bodies on the floor" there was a "possible" foul.

MTD, Sr.

I don't mean to be rude, but we don't really need a resume on every other post you make.

[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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

The disagreement, at least from my POV, is that I think this is an inherently flawed approach to officiating. Of course, when there are bodies on the floor the "odds" are there was a foul. But we don't officiate based on odds. We officiate based on seeing the whole play. And IMO that should be the focus, not reacting to the results when we didn't see the play, which is what the OP is really about.

I find it ironic that Johnny D suggests in this thread that people "should stop judging the legality of contact by its severity" then goes on to say that "Having two players on the ground is a good indication that one of them went to and through the other", which is effectively suggesting that you judge the legality of contact by the severity of the result.

I also have a problem with this statement- "Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground." Are the odds in favor that there was a foul when two players are on the ground? Yes. But I strongly disagree that it is a "rarely, if ever" scenario. Again, basketball is a contact sport with big, fast athletes. Sometimes guys end up on the ground even though nothing illegal has occurred.

I just think that the philosophy that many support of "we need a whistle any time we have bodies on the floor" is a bad one. It teaches officials to react to the result and places less of a focus on seeing the whole play and knowing WHY bodies are on the floor IMO. Really, bodies being on the floor is irrelevant to whether or not a foul should be called if we are doing our job and refereeing the play. We will see the displacement or illegal actions and penalize those for what they are, not the result of bodies being on the ground.

Yes, there are occasions where officials don't have needed whistles on crashes due to indecision, being to close to a play, straightlined, freezing up, etc. but hopefully when those instances occur one of the other 2 officials had a good look at the play and helps their partner out. The OP, however, asks about a play where there was no whistle and he didn't have a good look. I don't agree with the justifications suggested in this thread that adhere to the above philosophy that I think is flawed.

I really wish the OP would have discussed this with his partners after the game as that would have been the most useful feedback in all of this. But I do think this is good for discussion b/c IMO there are too many instances of officials just reacting to the results of contact and punishing players and teams when they did not see the whole play and nothing illegal happened.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I also have a problem with this statement- "Rarely if ever, can incidental contact result in two players on the ground." Are the odds in favor that there was a foul when two players are on the ground? Yes. But I strongly disagree that it is a "rarely, if ever" scenario. Again, basketball is a contact sport with big, fast athletes. Sometimes guys end up on the ground even though nothing illegal has occurred.

That was the statement with which I disagreed as well.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

I did see that post and thanks- it contains important clarifications. But I still have a problem with the overall implications of the suggestion that "bodies on the floor NEED whistles."

Reason being that it is unnecessary and focuses on the wrong things IMO. I have full confidence that experienced officials like yourself and many of the other esteemed members of this forum make every effort to see the whole play and call what you see.

The problem I have, though, is what I stated earlier. I hear this in too many pre-games and I think, while well-intentioned, it sends the wrong message to less experienced officials. Again, in my experience there are too many officials putting whistles on plays simply as a result of, and reaction to, seeing bodies on the floor and then guessing at what happened. When the focus should be on maintaining angles, seeing the whole play, refereeing the defense, etc. so we know WHY bodies are on the floor. I would rather see the latter emphasized.

Originally Posted by Adam

That was the statement with which I disagreed as well.

Yes, and I think this mindset is part of the problem. The "that has to be something" mindset that suggests that there HAS to have been a foul called simply b/c people hit the ground. While there is often, or even usually, a foul when players hit the ground, my experience is that having players on the ground without anything illegal actually occurring it is not nearly as rare as others suggest.

[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.