Calling what you can't see?

[Freddy]

No. Unless I misunderstand the point.
To do what's floated (for the sake of seeing what a coach says he sees -- thin ice right there) would make you and me akin to those officials who impetuously predict not the play but the call. "Predictive Officiating." Ouch.
Use video to identify how better to be in the right place at the right time looking at the right thing to make the right call -- based on what is actually observed, not on what one supposes must have occurred. Use video to learn what better to focus on ("officiate the defense", "pick out that secondary defender", "identify the point of illegal contact", etc.), to sharpen what is able to be seen, not to increase the percentage of guesses that are correct.
Along with ballwatching, predictive call-making has to be one of the scourges of officiating. That makes an official wrong more often than s/he ends up being right.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the point.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Along with ballwatching, predictive call-making has to be one of the scourges of officiating.

Amen.

Many of the worst calls I see are on plays where it appears the official expected something to happen (e.g., a defender going hard to an opponent about to take a layup), and something else happened (e.g., the defender jumped sideways at the end to let the opponent go instead of challenging the ball).

While I'm not sure that is exactly what the OP was referring to, I agree fully with jtheump that the key is to learn why you aren't seeing it to figure out how you can see it in the future, rather than guessing at things you can't see.

[Pantherdreams]

I would agree with most here. . . I feel like Scenario 1 is totally reasonble as an expectation. We looked at tape. We are all seeing the same thing and agreeing it should be called a foul. When you see it (or move to get angle to see it better, etc) then you start calling it based on what you learned from the tape.

There is a bit of push by some officials in our are for scenario 2 to apply as well but I'm less comfortable there. Ie. We know that when we look at tape players who make this move are often travelling when we slow it down. In real time its close enough that its difficult to tell unless the only thing you are watching in the competitive matchup is just the ball hand and pivot foot. Not always possible when trying to officiate the defense. We know (slowmo video evidence) that this action is a travel 90% of the time, lets just call it as an automatic unless we're sure it wasn't.

I don't like the idea of getting 1 wrong just to get the other 9 right if the only way I can see the other 9 is on slow mo replay.

[twocentsworth]

There are three parts to every play: 1) start; 2) development; & 3) finish. You HAVE to see each of the parts in order to judge if a foul or a violation occurred. When you "guess" and have a whistle for what you "think" happened, your call accuracy goes WAAAAAAAAAAY down.

The use of video is critical for an official to understand where to look, when to look, and WHAT to look for. Once you understand that, then you have the best chance to get the call right. Call what you see. Nothing more - nothing less.

[johnny d]

I like the idea of calling what you don't see. In fact I like it so much, I am going to ask my assignors to bring it up with the coaches at the end of season meetings in a few weeks. If they can get the coaches to agree, then I can have them all mail my checks to me, and I can email them the list of calls I would have made, had I decided to actually go to the game. I like the idea of sitting on my couch at home, collecting a game fee for making calls in a game I didn't watch for one second.