Calling what you can't see?

[Pantherdreams]

Coaches often ask for things that we just don't or can't see. Sometimes we can we just see them differently. This really isn't a concern of mine. With the ability to use multiple technologies to review and track officiating of games however . . . can you see a point now or in your career where if you could consistently see something was a violation when you reviewed tape but you know in games you wouldn't catch it that, you would start calling it as a automatic? What about fouls?

Let me give you two scenarios:

1) After reviewing game tapes with your association or assigner it seems that there is a lot more clutching and grabbing on cutters being no called then people in the room are comfortable with. In real time though and moment officials including those on the tapes either missed it or passed because they didn't feel like met a standard/threshold for calling a foul. Wathcing the tapes there is general agreement now that these are in fact fouls. When seeing similar situations in the future would you start calling those fouls? Your moment gut says no, but the conversations you've had after the fact tell you that you aren't tight enough with this . . .

2) After reviewing games tapes with your association and assigner it seems that while in real time it was unclear as to whether players are lifting their pivot foot before or after the ball is released, that the tape in slow motion showsthat players who start their dribble above waist level on attacking dribbles are almost never getting the ball out of their hand before the ball comes up. Would you start calling that action a travel even though you couldn't distinguish in real time, but your review of performance indicates you are missing those . . .

[jTheUmp]

This is pretty much exactly why reviewing game film is a good idea.

(well, one of the reasons, at least).

Don't think of it as "calling what you can't see"... instead, think of it as "I used to think that XX level of contact was not enough for a foul, now I see that it is enough."

Think of it as "I currently don't see that travel in real time because _____" (not looking at the feet, not watching the release of the ball, whatever)... I need to start looking at _____ (thing that will help you catch that in the future)"

[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.