A swing and a miss (by a basketball referee)

[Rog]

A month and a half ago we had a pointed discussion about a play in the Warriors/Heat game in which it was stated that the Warriors committed a foul that was missed, and then the ball was thrown out of bounds, which was also missed.  It was stated that it was clear that the Warriors hadn't touched the ball, so if there was no foul, the Warriors should have gotten the ball.  I finally got to see the play, so please allow me to comment in a more informed way.

First, the play happened in transition, just as I had surmised was the case.  How did I know that?  Because that is the time it is most easy to miss calls.  If one stops and thinks about, the reason becomes obvious.  The referees are scrambling for position and often don't get as good a look as they do in more of a half-court situation.

So as best I could tell (and the only thing I wasn't positive about, although I agree it was highly likely, was the foul), here is what happened and why.   This isn't an excuse.  The call was missed -- twice -- and ideally no call would ever be missed.

When the foul was committed, the referee who would normally make the call was the center ref.  He was the one who was racing downcourt almost directly at the side of the play.  He's got a body in between him and any contact that was made, so he couldn't see the foul.  If he thinks there was a foul, he's caught between a rock and a hard place.  If he's right and does call the foul (which wasn't certain even with a better angle and slow-mo replay, but certainly appeared to be a foul), he's guilty of calling a foul he didn't see.  And how many times have we heard here how bad it is for an official to call something he doesn't see?

So he's wrong if he gets the call right, and obviously he's wrong if he misses it.  So essentially he's wrong in one manner or another because he's blocked on the play.  Should he have been blocked on the play?  Because of the quick interception of the David Lee back and cross court pass, I can see no way it was humanly possible.  It wasn't because he was slow.  He was keeping right up with the play, which if anything, made it harder to call because he was almost totally blocked. 

Did he get a bad break on the play?  No.  He was actually behind the play when it started and yet was quick enough that with a slight veer by the Miami player, he had caught up to the play and was virtually horizontal from it (which as mentioned, was part of the problem he had in viewing it).

So what we've got is a play on which the referee most responsible for the play did nothing wrong -- and yet certainly did appear to miss the call.

OK, so how about the ref who called the pass out of bounds on a Warrior deflection?  Because he was the trail referee becoming the lead when the ball changed hands, he probably had a better angle on the play.  But there was also a player from each team who was out in front of the play.  Watching those guys was his primary responsiblity.

I think when the ball went out of bounds, he was pretty darn sure something had happened back near midcourt.  He wasn't sure enough of what happened to call a foul, but he knew something had happened and the Warriors didn't deserve the ball.  So he called a deflection (which did appear to happen, although the ball then went right back into the hands of the Miami player but in a manner that caused him to throw the ball away).  Gave the ball to the Heat.

Was the play called correctly?  It certainly didn't appear that way (although the only way to be positive would have been with a camera at a different angle than either of the two shots that were shown).  Did the right team wind up with the ball?  Very likely it did.

So we've got one referee who couldn't see the apparent foul because he was blocked.  And we've got the other referee who out of the corner of his eye saw enough of the play to know it shouldn't be a Warriors ball.  So he made what was probably the judicious call.  (He likely didn't even see enough of the play to know which player to call the foul on.)

The referees almost certainly missed the call, but they wound up at least not taking the ball away from the Heat.  They appeared to get the spirit of the call right, even if the play wasn't called to the letter of the law. Was the call impossible to get right? No, but it was likely at least as hard as shooting a free throw.

I hope at least now we can understand WHY the call was likely missed.  That still doesn't make the call right.  But it does show that the person who said if the referee couldn't get it right, he shouldn't be an NBA official was at least as wrong as the result of the play.  If the official shouldn't be in the NBA because he missed that play, no player who ever missed a free throw should be in the NBA either.

So what was the most ridiculous comment here IMO?  It was the statement that the referee should have paid the fine for the technical foul Mark Jackson received on the play.  First of all, which official should have paid the fine?  The one who was blocked on the play and appeared to miss the foul?  Or the one who got the spirit of the call right?

But more importantly, whether an official missed a call or not, there is no excuse for a coach to get a technical foul.  Well, I actually CAN make an excuse.  The coaches are under tremendous pressure in a very emotional situation.  But they still should maintain their dignity.  Doing enough to get a technical foul is akin to the referee's coming over during a time out and questioning the coach's strategy by cursing at him.   Or worse, questioning the stategy while play is still going on.

The problem here isn't that with the aid of instant replay and slow motion we don't see most of the time when a call is missed.  The problem is that we don't understand -- and don't seem even to WANT to understand -- why the call was missed.

I have made the statement here that sometimes even the easy calls are missed.  Not very often, but it certainly does happen on occasion.  Ever seen a player drop a routine fly ball or muff a routine grounder?

On this play, someone who understands officiating will tell you that while he HATES to see any call missed, this was a very tough play to call -- and at least the right team wound up with the ball.  In fact, because the Warriors coach -- and Mark Jackson is a gentleman who rarely gets a technical foul -- got a technical, the Heat not only wound up with the ball, they also wound up with a point on the technical.

There is absolutely NOTHING that makes the calls on that play the right ones (other than the result made the result more or less proper).  But I wanted to explain probably HOW the calls were missed.  I realize no one gives a hoot, but they should. If a person hasn't reffed at a high enough level to know WHY those calls were likely missed, he probably shouldn't be criticizing.

Criticize that the call was missed, but don't say the referee should pay the fine for the technical foul.  Even a child can understand why that is wrong.  There is no reason why we, as adults, shouldn't be able to.

[Rog]

IMO, reffing basketball is a lot harder than umpiring baseball. But calls are going to be missed in virtually every sport.

I believe there is technology available that would allow almost every play to be correctly called electronically. If that is what you want, write the commissioner.

Personally, I have no problem with making the calls that way. But I do understand why baseball doesn't want to do so.

As a related aside, I noticed in Cal's latest game that one of the two officials I know who were reffing in the NBA is back doing Pac-12 games. Apparently he lost his job in the NBA. I didn't think he was the best official I had seen, although I did admire him for in his college season before he made the NBA recognizing he was tired and needed more focus -- and quickly being able to get that focus back.

Officials DO lose their jobs, by the way. I also know a former MLB vacation umpire who lost his. (Apparently I know the wrong guys!)

It's usually easy to see that an official missed a call. It takes a little more understanding and analysis to understand WHY he missed it. Any of us can see when Buster Posey doesn't block a ball in the dirt. Boly in particular can tell us some of the WHY he missed it.

That's because Boly knows more about baseball mechanics than most of us do. And even we can tell a casual fan something about why Buster missed it, even as the casual fan can see that he DID miss it. Heck, take Stevie Wonder to a few games, and he will be able to tell us WHEN a catcher misses a pitch.

For us to criticize a call shows that we can see. For us to understand WHY the call was missed shows that we can analyze.

I once spoke over the phone with an NBA official and asked him if there was pressure in keeping his job. He told me that I had no idea. I asked that same question of an official I knew who reffed in the women's professional league that preceeded the WNBA. He told me that you never knew if a game would be your last.

There is no excuse for missing a call. But there are usually reasons WHY the call was missed. Sometimes the reason is human frailty. Other times it is because the official was blocked and can't see through bodies. But there's virtually always a reason. Understanding the reason takes more than eyeballs. It involves what is BEHIND the eyes, as well.

[allenreed]

I would disagree that the ball should have been given to Miami. The ball traveled a good distance after being last touched by the Heat, and should easily have been seen by at least one of the three refs. If the ref had the limited certainty about the call that you say, he had no business doling out a technical. To say he got "the spirit" of the call right is just overthink. Just call the game according to the rules. They have enough trouble with that.
I think it's beyond question that basketball is much harder than baseball to officiate. That's pretty obvious.

[Rog]

Allen -- I would disagree that the ball should have been given to Miami.

Rog -- If there was no foul, the ball should have been given to the Warriors. If there was a foul, the foul should have been called. No question about that.

If there was no foul, the Warriors got gypped. If there was a foul, the result was better than giving the balls to the Warriors (although it wasn't ideal).

We question why the refs didn't get the call right, and they should have. That is their job (or at least to get a very high percentage right, since it isn't humanly possible to get 100% right).

But if there was a foul, Mark Jackson missed it. Otherwise he wouldn't have complained enough to get the technical. He had more or less the same view as the lead ref -- and he had the dual advantages of not running and not having the responsibility of watching the players out ahead of the ball.

The center ref (who had the primary responsibility) wasn't going to get that call unless he had X-Ray eyes or guessed right. (And calling something a ref or ump didn't see has been HEAVILY criticized here.) The trail official had the least responsibility and also was blocked from Thompson's reach to the point where all he could do was guess.

So you've got two referees out of the three who were blocked (and not through any mispositioning). The other ref had a primary responsiblity of watching the players ahead of the play, so he can hardly be faulted. In other words, it was almost impossible for the foul (if there was one, and it appeared there was) to be called by any of the three referees without their guesing.

As I posted before, I suspect the lead ref (who called the ball out of bounds to the Heat) saw enough out of the corner of his eye to suspect there was a foul and since he didn't even know whom to call it on (if at all), figured the fairest thing to do was give it to the Heat.

It would have been possible for him to call the foul, but his primary responsibility was the players ahead of the play. They were more or less straight across the court from him. In order to see the foul, he would have had to be looking back. He probably did well to see enough to suspect the fairest thing was to give the ball to the Heat.

There was no other reason for him to call the ball of the Warriors. If he is in doubt, he's going to call the play off the offense, not the defense. In other words, it would have been far easier for him to miss a deflection than the lack of one.

Even with three officials, there aren't enough eyes to watch all 10 players all the time. Not to mention the difficlties of judging a play while on the run and sometimes (as in this case) blocked out through no mistake on the part of the referee himself. This was such a play, and frankly, I'm surprised the right team wound up with the ball.

There just wasn't a way either the center or trail ref could call the foul without guessing. The lead official's primary responsibilty was to look elsewhere. Normally unless he specifically saw a deflection, he would call the pass out on the offense, not the defense. I suspect his call was based on the very (partial) information I indicated he probably had.

Let me ask you this, Allen. Which of the three officials should have seen the foul or had a view of the pass that was clear enough that he should have given the ball to the Warriors?

My point, Allen, is that you're criticizing something without knowing all the facts. I myself don't know them all for sure, but I'll bet they are very close to what I surmised happened. Think logically about the facts we DO know. They aren't consistent with the Heat being awarded the ball unless the lead ref was highly suspicious that giving the ball to the Warriors would have been precise opposite of what the refs should have done.

Just tell me, Allen, which of the three officials could have clearly seen the entire play. It just wasn't humanly possible. The guy with the best chance was the lead official, and at least he gave the ball to the right team when without any other knowledge except that the pass went ouf of bounds he would normally give the ball to the defense, not the offense.

And if you think I'm only saying this because the guys are refs and I myself am one, please don't forget that I also usually take the position of showing what a manager may have been considering when he made a call we didn't agree with. Including the fact that he may have knowledge we didn't have.

In the case we are now discussing, with the aid of replay, not having to run, and having two cameras giving a better picture of the play in part because at least one camera was above it, the officials had less information to work with than we had. Under the circumstances, it seems likely that the result was closer than we could have reasonably expected.

If you're going to criticize a call, criticize one in which the wrong team wound up with the ball. And try to have an understanding of what likely happened to the refs on the play.

I believe that even before seeing the play I guessed the "ingredients" of it pretty closely. That's because I've been there, done that. No one else here really has been.

I'm not saying not to question why the call happened. But to say that the ref should have paid Marc Jackson's fine is almost juvenile.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2189/swing-basketball-referee#ixzz2tS7K24ka

[allenreed]

If the foul wasn't called, there was no foul. Don't compound the error by getting another call wrong. And after missing two calls on one play, don't T up a coach for complaining about it.
Take your medicine, let him vent and move on.

[allenreed]

I think that should be a blanket rule. If an official blows a call, then punishes the coach by giving him a T, tossing him etc. for questioning the call, the official should pay the fine. His mistake caused the hoo-ha. It gives the officials some skin in the game. It just seems wrong to me that the official should blow the call then further punish the coach for his own incompetence.

[Rog]

Allen -- I think that should be a blanket rule. If an official blows a call, then punishes the coach by giving him a T, tossing him etc. for questioning the call, the official should pay the fine.

Rog -- I think it should be a blanket rule. If you make a mistake on your job, you should pay a fine. If you make a mistake in raising your kids, you should pay a fine. If you upset your wife, you should pay a fine. If you upset any of us on this board -- and especially Don -- you should pay a fine.

I'm not being all that much more ludicrous than you here. This is one of your worst ideas ever.

A referee misses a call, and the offended coach punches him, getting a technical foul. The referee then pays the fine for the technical. Please think things through before you post them.

Allen -- His mistake caused the hoo-ha.

Rog -- No, the coach's lack of control caused the hoo-ha, if by that you mean the technical. The ref's missing a call contributed to it.

Allen -- It gives the officials some skin in the game. It just seems wrong to me that the official should blow the call then further punish the coach for his own incompetence.

Rog -- I personally know an NBA ref (not well, but it you told him who I was, he would halfway remember me). I just mentioned in this post that he is no longer an NBA ref, but rather is back in the Pac-12, where I met him in the refs' locker room on a few occasions.

In his first season as an NBA ref, he did a pretty nice job of temporarily defusing the detonation in Detroit -- until the fan threw beer on the artist futurely known as Meta Peace.

I'm guessing this official left the NBA of his own volition, right? If there were no repercussions as you believe, what other reason would there be?



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2189/swing-basketball-referee#ixzz2tVKUj5zv

[Rog]

Allen -- If the foul wasn't called, there was no foul.

Rog -- And if you don't hear your child crying in the night, he's not crying, right?

Allen -- Don't compound the error by getting another call wrong. And after missing two calls on one play, don't T up a coach for complaining about it.

Rog -- You've lost it on this subject, Allen. If the ref knew he got the call wrong, he wouldn't have missed the call. If the ref were to do what you said, he wouldn't be able to give a coach a technical no matter how the coach complained. What you are suggesting here is to give Marc Jackson for missing or ignoring the foul on the play, then complaining in an ungentleman way that earns him a technical. Instead, you would have the official who apparently gave the ball to the right team pay Marc's fine.

That's not fine, Allen. It's not even close to being defensible.

Allen -- Take your medicine, let him vent and move on.

Rog -- Again, just how is the official to know he missed the call? Does the ref allow Marc to say or do anything he wants while the ref goes over and watches the replay several times to be sure he missed the call? And hope that the replay is clear in doing so?

I've been in a locker room with high-level referees who have watched a play on slow-mo video and had different opinions of the play.

Didn't you pay attention when I told you that on the play you questioned, two of the three refs were blocked and the other one's primary responsibility was watching other players ahead of the play? Go out and ref 5000 games and then tell me what you think.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2189/swing-basketball-referee?page=1#scrollTo=18891#ixzz2tVNXxRm4

[allenreed]

If you upset your wife you definitely pay a fine. Maybe not an immediate monetary one, but you pay. Upset her enough and you pay big. It's called alimony. Many pay at work if they foul up. Upset your kids and your fine is having to sit through the subsequent sulking or fit. Same with Don.

[allenreed]

Your crying kid analogy makes no sense. The foul wasn't called therefore no foul. If the runner beats the throw to first and the ump calls him out, he isn't safe.
I think you said you have now seen the play. Did you see any reason for him to give the ball to Miami, after the Heat player clearly threw it out of bounds? Make up call for missing the foul? Because they're Miami? Neither passes the smell test.
Given 82 games a year, it would take 60+ years to call 5000 games.

[allenreed]

As a ref, in the heat of the moment hasn't a foul happened that you didn't call, and you knew right away that you should have. If not, you're better than most NBA refs.

With my plan, a ref could certainly give the coach a T. All he has to do is get the causative call right. If he's right and the coach is wrong, the coach pays the fine.
Again, it gives the officials some skin in the game. It gives them incentive to be better. It will bring both poor and overly sensitive officials under greater scrutiny. It gives the non-elite teams recourse against the league's self-admittedly biased officiating.

[allenreed]

One more. You mentioned the ref looking at the replay. He didn't. If he had I imagine Jackson would have been placated. He certainly would have been vindicated.

[donk33]

Feb 16, 2014 14:11:55 GMT -5 allenreed said:

If you upset your wife you definitely pay a fine. Maybe not an immediate monetary one, but you pay. Upset her enough and you pay big. It's called alimony. Many pay at work if they foul up. Upset your kids and your fine is having to sit through the subsequent sulking or fit. Same with Don.

dk...don't understand your reference to me...but then it is difficult to understand any of your arguments....and my wife put up with me for 50 years and I now live with my daughter.......seems as if I mostly upset right wing nuts...

insert quote here

[allenreed]

It was off Rog's reference to you in an earlier post. I forgot that as a liberal, you have an underdeveloped sense of humor.