OK rollo

[Gazoo]

Interested to see if you defend the refs on this one.

SMU player jumps in the air to shoot. I thought Amzil knocked it out of his hands, and the player lands with the ball. Let's say that happened. Isn't that an automatic jump ball?

On replay, Amzil didn't even knock it out of his hands, the guy just jumped into Amzil and Amzil stood there like a tree. The guy bounces off Amzil and lost control. He lands with the ball and goes up again. In this case, isn't it traveling?

Then, as shown on the replay, the guy gathers the ball and jumps into Amzil again, who was straight up and not moving, and they called the foul on Amzil because after all that mess you had to blow the whistle for something.

What's the rule here?

Also, does anyone know why AG was so upset about the TO call? Did he want the foul call instead to force the FT's?

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Also, does anyone know why AG was so upset about the TO call? Did he want the foul call instead to force the FT's?

The guy who called the time out had just received a 40' or so lob pass that got the ball across half court. I think AG was mad that the ref missed a 10 second call on that pass.

[rollo]

The travel/non-travel call was right. Amzil appeared to ever-so-slightly touch the ball while the SMU player was in the air, so 'team' control changed and the SMU player can re-catch the ball and continue on his way. Just as Amzil could have grabbed the ball and continued on his way, too. It wasn't explained well on TV, but to thy royally trained and golden eyes, the ref, as usual, was correct.

As for the foul on Amzil, he was somewhat 'vertical', but since he reacted to the loose ball by leaning/lunging/moving toward it, he was not it a legal defensive position...so once again, the ref applied the rule, and called the foul. You say that he wasn't moving, so I'm guessing you had your red-and-blue glasses on, because the golden eyes never questioned whether Amzil was 'moving' because he obviously was.

I didn't hear the 10-second argument until Clayton brought it up...was that coming from Larry and Josh on radio?? The TV guys were so one-sided that there was no way they would have brought that up.

[TXFlyerFan]

Both of those were badly missed calls. The first play above happened right in front of us. At worst, it should have been a jump ball, but really should have been a turnover. There was the 10 second missed call, and then there was another missed call on an SMU inbounds where the player clearly did not even touch the ball before 5 seconds were up. A few other ticky-tack fouls but you get those every game. Those were the three really egregiously missed calls.

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by rollo . I didn't hear the 10-second argument until Clayton brought it up...was that coming from Larry and Josh on radio?? The TV guys were so one-sided that there was no way they would have brought that up.

I was reading AG lips and he pointed at the 18 on the shot clock at the time he was so irate. I am just putting two an two together, but as you know I am always right!

[rollo]

Originally Posted by TXFlyerFan The first play above happened right in front of us. At worst, it should have been a jump ball, but really should have been a turnover.

It can only be a jump ball if there is dual possession! So you're 100% admitting that Amzil CLEARLY touched and possessed the ball...which therefore means that it was a loose ball...meaning that it CANNOT be a turnover.

Just sayin...

[San Diego Flyer]

We can talk technicalities all day on the play last night. But from the time we started our comeback at -15 down, until the end, the play was as wild and physical as it gets in college basketball. The refs had the opportunity to call a foul, or miss a foul, every 10 seconds.

I was sitting next to Daron's dad behind the Flyer bench and we were equally stunned at the physicality. And that's not to say we thought the calls were bad. The "bad calls" and missed calls were equally dispersed. You didn't have time to complain.
From our vantage point AG had a right to complain about the 10 second call.

The whole atmosphere was toxic.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo The travel/non-travel call was right. Amzil appeared to ever-so-slightly touch the ball while the SMU player was in the air, so 'team' control changed and the SMU player can re-catch the ball and continue on his way. Just as Amzil could have grabbed the ball and continued on his way, too. It wasn't explained well on TV, but to thy royally trained and golden eyes, the ref, as usual, was correct. As for the foul on Amzil, he was somewhat 'vertical', but since he reacted to the loose ball by leaning/lunging/moving toward it, he was not it a legal defensive position...so once again, the ref applied the rule, and called the foul. You say that he wasn't moving, so I'm guessing you had your red-and-blue glasses on, because the golden eyes never questioned whether Amzil was 'moving' because he obviously was. I didn't hear the 10-second argument until Clayton brought it up...was that coming from Larry and Josh on radio?? The TV guys were so one-sided that there was no way they would have brought that up.

Then can you explain why, in the last home game, the same play happened and the ref called it as a jump ball?

[rollo]

No two plays are ever the same.

[NJFlyr71]

would you ask for the Rollo Ref opinion?!

You know how we all hate when the ref farthest away from the play makes the call?

So where was Rollo last nite?

In the Coliseum or in the RexPlex?

If in the RexPlex thats what? 1,000 miles away.

How can that NOT BE the ref farthest away from the play?

Good Grief!

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo As for the foul on Amzil, he was somewhat 'vertical', but since he reacted to the loose ball by leaning/lunging/moving toward it, he was not it a legal defensive position...so once again, the ref applied the rule, and called the foul. You say that he wasn't moving, so I'm guessing you had your red-and-blue glasses on, because the golden eyes never questioned whether Amzil was 'moving' because he obviously was.

I don't own red or blue glasses, but I do own an ESPN+ subscription, and I just watched it again. They have a slow motion replay from the ref's view under the rim, and you can watch it over and over again. 8:57 of the first half. Amzil was just standing there, and the guy picks up the ball and dives backward to avoid the block. Amzil's arms were not straight up at the end, but, the SMU player had already dove backward using Amzil's legs as a springboard--meaning, the arms never came close to making contact on the fadeaway. The contact that was called was for body contact which is literally impossible to avoid when a guy dives into your legs and torso while you're just standing there. But, that's really not my question.



"No two plays are the same" but there is only 1 rule. And what I'm asking is: what's the rule about knocking the ball out of a guy's hands and the guy landing with the ball? Because the last game it was applied one way, and against SMU it was applied a different way.

[Gazoo]

BTW, you can see on the replay that the ball came loose, the SMU player re-caught the ball, and clearly had full possession when he landed with it. So he left the ground with control, lost control, re-established (not a rulebook definition) control, and then landed again.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo BTW, you can see on the replay that the ball came loose, the SMU player re-caught the ball, and clearly had full possession when he landed with it. So he left the ground with control, lost control, re-established (not a rulebook definition) control, and then landed again.

Which makes what the SMU player did 100% legal. Because we all know you can't 'travel' without possession. So when you admit he 'lost control', it's impossible to then call 'traveling' unless you just don't care about the rules. Right???

Of course I am...

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo Which makes what the SMU player did 100% legal. Because we all know you can't 'travel' without possession. So when you admit he 'lost control', it's impossible to then call 'traveling' unless you just don't care about the rules. Right??? Of course I am...

I know you can't travel without possession. And I'm not arguing that it's the wrong call. But you're so blinded by telling me how right you are that your blinders are not allowing you to even see that I'm asking a different question. Take a breath.

What is the rule, because in the prior game the ball was knocked loose and the player landed with it, and a jump ball was called. The 2 players CLEARLY could not have had dual possession when it was "knocked loose" in mid-air. But that was a jump ball.

What does the rule say, and how does the ref make the decision about how to apply it.

[rollo]

If the SMU player jumps in the air and shoots...and Amzil blocks the shot...can the SMU player catch the ball, dribble and shoot/pass again? Or is it traveling?

If the SMU player attempts to pass the ball to another SMU player and Amzil reaches out and knocks it back to the passer who catches it, can he then dribble and pass again? Or is it traveling??

In both cases, of course he can. Anyone who calls that traveling needs to get back to his coloring book and leave the reffing to those who understand the rules.

So tell me how the 2 scenarios above differ from what happened last night? All three involve a possession - loose ball - possession...

And all three are legal.

As for your jump ball question, I don’t recall the play and doubt it was as you describe so I have no comment. And FWIW, what a Rule ‘says’ and what a Rule ‘means’ isn’t as clear as you wish. To keep it simple, knocking a bal loose is not a jump ball situation…however, if you get your palm on the ball at the same time an opponent has possession, even if just for a split second, a jump ball is justified…

Which ends the royal explanations. But the rest of you can continue to demonstrate your ignorance and I won't interfere.

[Gazoo]

I found this online.

"Thanks" for the help.

The shooter can retrieve his or her own airball, if the referee considers it to be a shot attempt. The release ends team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked and is unable to release the ball and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in this situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot and play continues. If, in this situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne shooter returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and picks up the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor.


So basically, in the last game, the ref decided that the shot was blocked in such a way that both players were holding the ball. But in the SMU game, it simply came loose, therefore the player can retrieve it and dribble or shoot again.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by rollo I didn't hear the 10-second argument until Clayton brought it up...was that coming from Larry and Josh on radio?? The TV guys were so one-sided that there was no way they would have brought that up.

Whoaaacha mean there's no way them there Texas broaaadcaaasters wooda brought thayet up? Ah, the joy of ESPN+, streaming, and taking what you get for low budget TV talent!

Yes, Larry and Josh were as incredulous AG on the backcourt violation/non-call. But I'm sure in the chaos a Flyer (probably Amzil) touched/deflected/blocked/licked or otherwise defaced the ball and, therefore, the ref had no choice but to re-start his 10 second count!

[ClaytonFlyerFan]

Originally Posted by Radar . But I'm sure in the chaos a Flyer (probably Amzil) touched/deflected/blocked/licked or otherwise defaced the ball and, therefore, the ref had no choice but to re-start his 10 second count!

10 second count does not start over for any of the reasons you listed, other than licking the ball of course

[flyerfanatic86]

Originally Posted by ClaytonFlyerFan 10 second count does not start over for any of the reasons you listed, other than licking the ball of course

And in a pandemic, licking the ball is also a personal foul.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by flyerfanatic86 And in a pandemic, licking the ball is also a personal foul.

Don't tell the Queen!

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by rollo Don't tell the Queen!

Especially if you are playing NCAA rules and they only allow five fouls...can you say disqualification...

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo I found this online. "Thanks" for the help. The shooter can retrieve his or her own airball, if the referee considers it to be a shot attempt. The release ends team control. It is not a violation for that player to start another dribble at that point. When an airborne player keeps control of an attempted shot that is blocked and is unable to release the ball and returns to the floor with it, that player has not traveled; it is a held ball. If, in this situation, the shooter loses control of the ball because of the block, then this is simply a blocked shot and play continues. If, in this situation, the defender simply touches the ball, and the airborne shooter returns to the floor holding the ball, it’s a traveling violation. When an airborne player tries for goal, sees that the try will be blocked, purposely drops the ball, and picks up the ball after it hits the floor, that player has traveled by starting a dribble with the pivot foot off the floor. So basically, in the last game, the ref decided that the shot was blocked in such a way that both players were holding the ball. But in the SMU game, it simply came loose, therefore the player can retrieve it and dribble or shoot again.

2 bad calls in the first half.

14:11, Holmes blocks a shot, GW player comes down with it, they call jump ball. The ball left everyone's hands, clearly not dual possession.

About 17:30 Holmes goes up for a shot, partially blocked but the shot clearly went off the rim (so impossible to say they both controlled the ball), Holmes recovers, and goes back up. Called a jump ball.

Both wrong.

[rollo]

The delayed whistle made things look worse. Both calls looked good from my end...the timing just confused the unknowing.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo The delayed whistle made things look worse. Both calls looked good from my end...the timing just confused the unknowing.

Just watched both replays. Ball was clearly loose and not dual possession. It's pointless, you know the call is obviously wrong by the refs, you're just not going to admit it.

Worse, you can see on the replay that the ref says it was a jump ball because he landed with the ball. Which is not the rule.

[Gazoo]

17:48 for anyone who wants to check it out. Clear, obvious, not even debatable.

[rollo]

Typically when a ref blows a call, especially early in the game, you’ll see the player, coach and equally unknowing announcers react in a way that clearly indicates that they disagree. None of them did. Which is typically what happens when the call is correct.

Just sayin’.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo Typically when a ref blows a call, especially early in the game, you’ll see the player, coach and equally unknowing announcers react in a way that clearly indicates that they disagree. None of them did. Which is typically what happens when the call is correct. Just sayin’. Posted via Mobile Device

You mean like when Holmes jumped off the ground he was so disgusted with the bad call? Palms up and threw his arms down in frustration?

You mean like that? I have video proof.

And at the other end a short time later, when they didn't complain, that is because both teams knew the ref screwed up the first call. Everyone accepted it was a makeup call. Both were wrong.

[The Fly]

Of course the announcers also didn’t say a word when the refs let a GW player inbound the ball while running the baseline after a missed Dayton shot, deadball out of bounds — a traveling violation. Larry Hansgen did. Grant did. But not the TV announcers. The refs certainly blew that one.

	Larry Hansgen LARRY HANSGEN The long-time voice of the Flyers on NewsTalk Radio WHIO, Larry Hansgen provides play-by-play for all University of Dayton men's basketball and football games. Hansgen also serves as News Director for WHIO 1290 AM and 95.7 FM.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by The Fly Of course the announcers also didn’t say a word when the refs let a GW player inbound the ball while running the baseline after a made Dayton field goal — a traveling violation. Larry Hansgen did. Grant did. But not the TV announcers. The refs certainly blew that one.

Please clarify. You've always been allowed to run the baseline after a made basket. Maybe Sir Gazoo can rewatch the inbound play a couple hundred times for us and make the correct call.

[cj]

You are allowed to run the baseline after a made shot.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

What does Hal McCoy say??

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo You mean like when Holmes jumped off the ground he was so disgusted with the bad call? Palms up and threw his arms down in frustration? You mean like that? I have video proof. And at the other end a short time later, when they didn't complain, that is because both teams knew the ref screwed up the first call. Everyone accepted it was a makeup call. Both were wrong.

Edit: the announcer said "I don't know if I would have made that same call, but, fortunately I don't give (the refs) a hard time anymore" because the announcer is no longer coaching.

So, rollo, you said "Typically when a ref blows a call, especially early in the game, you’ll see the player, coach and equally unknowing announcers react in a way that clearly indicates that they disagree. None of them did."

You are now demonstrably wrong, since Homes most definitely reacted in a way that clearly indicated he did not agree, and the announcer coyly said he disagrees. That's 2 out of 3. I'll bet AG did too, but the camera didn't show him.

So, since they DID react in a way that indicates they disagreed, I assume you now believe the call was wrong. Correct?


Just.



Sayin'.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo What does Hal McCoy say??

Well apparently it matters what AG, the announcers, and the guy on the wrong end of the call says.

Just sayin'.

[The Fly]

Originally Posted by rollo Please clarify. You've always been allowed to run the baseline after a made basket. Maybe Sir Gazoo can rewatch the inbound play a couple hundred times for us and make the correct call.

Brain fart typo. Meant missed shot, deadball out of bounds. Ran the baseline, should have been a traveling call.

And I should stop sniffing glue while typing.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by rollo Typically when a ref blows a call, especially early in the game, you’ll see the player, coach and equally unknowing announcers react in a way that clearly indicates that they disagree. None of them did. Which is typically what happens when the call is correct. Just sayin’. Posted via Mobile Device

The call was not correct. Not this time. No. No. No.

[rollo]

I’m flattered by the effort Gazoo regularly takes to prove me wrong, all the while unknowingly proving that he doesn’t understand the game.

The only way to prove an official wrong is to see things thru his angle. A ref is taught day 1 to only call what he sees. The fact that the ref called a jump ball can only be proved wrong if you have his view and timeline to review. The angle from the rafters is irrelevant…as is every other view.

Does Joe Burrow suck because the camera on top of the stadium showed he missed JaMarr Chase 40 yds downfield? An amateur might think so, but someone with a brain would realize that from Joe’s view, he never saw Chase thanks to four 320 lb men on the run trying to crush him.

If a ref calls traveling on a double-dribble, that bad. If a ref calls over-and-back on a charge, that’s bad. If a ref calls a jump ball/dual possession it’s because that’s what he saw. Which makes it right regardless of the multiple slo-mo replays Gazoo has in his library….none of which show the angle the ref had when he blew the whistle.

It's complicated...and I don’t expect everyone to understand…because very few will. Fewer can. Even fewer try.

What category are you in?
Posted via Mobile Device

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by rollo I’m flattered by the effort Gazoo regularly takes to prove me wrong, all the while unknowingly proving that he doesn’t understand the game. The only way to prove an official wrong is to see things thru his angle. A ref is taught day 1 to only call what he sees. The fact that the ref called a jump ball can only be proved wrong if you have his view and timeline to review. The angle from the rafters is irrelevant…as is every other view. Does Joe Burrow suck because the camera on top of the stadium showed he missed JaMarr Chase 40 yds downfield? An amateur might think so, but someone with a brain would realize that from Joe’s view, he never saw Chase thanks to four 320 lb men on the run trying to crush him. If a ref calls traveling on a double-dribble, that bad. If a ref calls over-and-back on a charge, that’s bad. If a ref calls a jump ball/dual possession it’s because that’s what he saw. Which makes it right regardless of the multiple slo-mo replays Gazoo has in his library….none of which show the angle the ref had when he blew the whistle. It's complicated...and I don’t expect everyone to understand…because very few will. Fewer can. Even fewer try. What category are you in? Posted via Mobile Device

Rollo, you lost me here. A ref not being able to see something because their view is blocked doesn’t mean the call isn’t wrong. It’s a great reason why the call is wrong and doesn’t mean they are a terrible ref. They are just human doing the best they can. Nobody is perfect. I would be shocked if there was ever a game where the refs didn’t make at least 3-5 incorrect calls. That is why there is replay and challenges in NFL and NBA and tennis. Impossible to never be wrong. Next game instead of Gazoo pointing out what he thinks was a bad call, why don’t you point out to us what you think was the worst call.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

I never said his view was or may have been blocked. I said you have to judge his call based on what he sees...not what the 85" HD multiple screen replay shows. If the ref saw dual possession, that's what he saw and that's what he had to call. If 75 other angles show something else, it's irrelevant as the ref didn't have those other angles to review 48 times in slo-mo before making the call.

What a rule says, what a rule means and how it's applied and how it's called involve different levels of understanding. 99% of the basketball world hasn't gone past Step 1.

[superfan99]

Originally Posted by rollo I never said his view was or may have been blocked. I said you have to judge his call based on what he sees...not what the 85" HD multiple screen replay shows. If the ref saw dual possession, that's what he saw and that's what he had to call. If 75 other angles show something else, it's irrelevant as the ref didn't have those other angles to review 48 times in slo-mo before making the call. What a rule says, what a rule means and how it's applied and how it's called involve different levels of understanding. 99% of the basketball world hasn't gone past Step 1.

Maybe we just agree to disagree. You are offering a good explanation on why his call is wrong. But I absolutely think you can judge the call based on the replays and different angles.

If I can only judge a call based on what the ref sees, then that explains all the blind refs that still have a job. Lol.

Judging a call and judging the quality of the ref can be two separate things.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

Rollo agrees to agree with the agreeable.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Runnin' Rebel]

Originally Posted by rollo I never said his view was or may have been blocked. I said you have to judge his call based on what he sees...not what the 85" HD multiple screen replay shows. If the ref saw dual possession, that's what he saw and that's what he had to call. If 75 other angles show something else, it's irrelevant as the ref didn't have those other angles to review 48 times in slo-mo before making the call. What a rule says, what a rule means and how it's applied and how it's called involve different levels of understanding. 99% of the basketball world hasn't gone past Step 1.

When in high school, our coach made the players referee the championship games on the last day of basketball camp.

That's the day all the relatives would come, and see their kids play.

Boy was it an eye opener... I spent half my time telling parents I could only call what I see.

It gave us a true appreciation of their job.

[Smitty10]

Sounds to me, just like cops carrying body cameras, we need tiny replay cameras on the forehead of Refs so we can see what they see. SMH.

[rollo]

In a court of law, you will see multiple 'witnesses' called who swear to tell the truth...many of them will tell stories that contradict the other. It doesn't make one truth better than the other, or one right and the other wrong, it's just a different set of eyes explaining what they saw. And all of them can be considered the truth.

Reffing is no different...except that we're supposed to be neutral and everyone else has a bias.

[jack72]

Having refereed I can say you can only call what you see. Sometimes you have a bad angle or are blocked out, or even make a premature call based on what you see is going to happen. Do refs make mistakes? Of course, but almost none based on what they see. Are there bad calls based on replays? Of course in all sports. Does it mean the ref is bad? No, it just means he had a different view.

And of course there are disagreements even on replays. The end of the VCU game is a clear example. Many saw a foul, and many saw no foul. Who is right? The ref, because he is paid to make that call in real time from whatever angle.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo I’m flattered by the effort Gazoo regularly takes to prove me wrong, all the while unknowingly proving that he doesn’t understand the game. The only way to prove an official wrong is to see things thru his angle. A ref is taught day 1 to only call what he sees. The fact that the ref called a jump ball can only be proved wrong if you have his view and timeline to review. The angle from the rafters is irrelevant…as is every other view. Does Joe Burrow suck because the camera on top of the stadium showed he missed JaMarr Chase 40 yds downfield? An amateur might think so, but someone with a brain would realize that from Joe’s view, he never saw Chase thanks to four 320 lb men on the run trying to crush him. If a ref calls traveling on a double-dribble, that bad. If a ref calls over-and-back on a charge, that’s bad. If a ref calls a jump ball/dual possession it’s because that’s what he saw. Which makes it right regardless of the multiple slo-mo replays Gazoo has in his library….none of which show the angle the ref had when he blew the whistle. It's complicated...and I don’t expect everyone to understand…because very few will. Fewer can. Even fewer try. What category are you in? Posted via Mobile Device

I didn't (only) prove you wrong with replay angles, I proved you wrong with your own words. Which you will attempt to deflect. LOOK, SQUIRREL!! You said all 3 would have complained if the call was wrong and that they didn't. Well, they did. I guess you "didn't have the correct view to see it," so that makes you right.

But here's the real point. And it was made by jack72: you can make an incorrect call because there are limited refs watching a highly disproportionate level of action. OF COURSE THEY CAN'T SEE EVERYTHING. You're making the strawman of all strawman arguments right now. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is making the argument that the refs routinely and frequently see exactly the slo-mo action of a play and then just make the wrong call. That rarely, and I mean rarely, is the argument. And I can 100% tell you that is NOT the argument I'm making.

The argument I'm making is that refs do, when standing right in front of a play, miss a call. Not because they forgot the rules. That's a patently childish argument you're making. They miss calls because it's really, really, really hard to ref.

So just say: "yeah, he has 4 things he has to be watching simultaneously, and it looks like his eyes didn't focus fast enough. He missed it."

"He missed it" does not in any way mean "he doesn't know the rules." It means his eyes, being imperfect, just missed it.

The reason I have to quote the rulebook back to you is because every time a ref missed a call you claim some horsesh** excuse about the rules being more complex than my little pea brain could ever understand. So I have to prove that a ref made a call that is contrary to the rule to get you to admit refs are fallible. The replay shows: he just missed it. And that's OK. Just say it.

And while you're at it, you can admit you were completely wrong when you said the player, announcers, and coach definitely didn't argue the call BECAUSE THEY DID. You missed it. You were wrong.

[rollo]

It’s amazing how smart someone can get sitting in an armchair. It begs the question ‘why’ us officials attend so many meetings, watch videos, take exams and huddle up between quarters, halves and games.

Next chance I get, I’m buying a lazy-boy and going to be a brain surgeon. Gazoo…I’ll need my first patient next week…are you available for a transplant? Don’t worry…I’ll replay Chicago ER a couple times to make sure I get it right.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

On a more serious note, if the ref called what he saw, how can it be wrong? Is he supposed to call what you see? I really hope you get off your lazy-boy some day and put a whistle in your mouth. You need a new perspective.
Posted via Mobile Device

[shwag33]

I'm guessing these were all the right calls too rollo After all the ref called what he saw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJvEwWZhZTk

[rollo]

“NBA refs suck”
Posted via Mobile Device

[Justin]

I’ve noticed Smith does the left to right hand travel almost every time after a score. Never called, but he needs to recognize he is doing it.

Originally Posted by shwag33 I'm guessing these were all the right calls too rollo After all the ref called what he saw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJvEwWZhZTk

[rollo]

It’s only a travel if the ball comes to a stop during the dribble. You’re allowed to dribble L/R and can even put your hand under the ball (which was traveling 3 years ago)…today, just keep everything moving and Smith is OK.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo It’s amazing how smart someone can get sitting in an armchair. It begs the question ‘why’ us officials attend so many meetings, watch videos, take exams and huddle up between quarters, halves and games. Next chance I get, I’m buying a lazy-boy and going to be a brain surgeon. Gazoo…I’ll need my first patient next week…are you available for a transplant? Don’t worry…I’ll replay Chicago ER a couple times to make sure I get it right. Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by rollo On a more serious note, if the ref called what he saw, how can it be wrong? Is he supposed to call what you see? I really hope you get off your lazy-boy some day and put a whistle in your mouth. You need a new perspective. Posted via Mobile Device

Your strawman arguments are astounding. I thought you were fairly rational outside your king rollo persona. Not s'much.

Why attend so many meetings and watch so many videos? To make you LESS IMPERFECT. When a ref is in the right spot, at the right time, looking at the right thing, he's significantly less likely to make the wrong call.

Notice: I didn't say "never." And if you were being the slightest bit rational, neither would you.

Attend your camps. Watch your videos. And miss less calls. What's that got to do with a Lazy Boy?? All the Lazy Boy does is allow me to WATCH VIDEO and see if the ref made a bad call. Nowhere do I say I could do better or say that I hate every ref because they are all terrible when they blow the whistle against my beloved Flyers. Despite what you want to believe, I rarely even get mad at a ref during a game; I rationally expect them to get a few wrong. It's an imperfect science. I just move on.

As to your statement about "what are refs supposed to do, call things they didn't see" that's again, childish logic, and definitionally a straw man. Stop it, you're better than that.

The question is: can rollo admit what everyone on the planet (including other refs) know to be a fact: sometimes the ref is just wrong. That's all any of us want you to say, and the fact that you won't say it makes it all the more difficult to take anything you say seriously. Sometimes, for example on a block / charge play, the ref is effectively required to blow the whistle and call something. He will make the best call he can make 100% of the time following all his training perfectly and using his vast experience perfectly and doing everything right, and 90%+ of the time I'll bet he's right. But some non-zero % of the time he's just wrong. The game is lightning fast, the players aggressive, and it's really hard to never be wrong. And no ref is never wrong.

Just admit it. That's it.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo On a more serious note, if the ref called what he saw, how can it be wrong? Is he supposed to call what you see?

I just realized something and it's absolutely hilarious: rollo is a member of the "everybody gets a trophy" crowd.

Little Jimmy has been practicing field goals his whole life. He watched videos, attended camps, and practiced for hours and hours while other people sat on their Lazy Boy. Jimmy went to college, got drafted, and is in the Super Bowl ready to kick the game winning field goal. He sees the wind, sees his footing, sees the hold, sees his approach, and then . . .

. . . he sees the ball miss left. But that's OK. Because Jimmy made that field goal (according to rollo). He still gets a trophy. Because what's he supposed to do, kick it somewhere he DOESN'T see it going through the uprights?

rollo, somewhere Scott Norwood is very happy to hear from you that he never blew the Super Bowl. He's a ***winner***. Because the outcome of the play doesn't matter. All that matters is that you spend a lot of time practicing. And from there you're always right.

[ud2]

Originally Posted by superfan99 They are just human doing the best they can. Nobody is perfect. I would be shocked if there was ever a game where the refs didn’t make at least 3-5 incorrect calls. That is why there is replay and challenges in NFL and NBA and tennis. Impossible to never be wrong.

There is no such thing as a perfect ref, even Bo Boroski, one of the best refs in college basketball, openly admitted that he makes 4-7 mistakes/bad calls per game. The frustrating thing about arguing with rollo is that he never admits that the refs make mistakes sometimes. He think the refs are the second coming of Jesus Christ: perfect in every way.

[San Diego Flyer]

Please Lord, don't postpone our next game. Another thread like this surely won't carryover.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by ud2 There is no such thing as a perfect ref, even Bo Boroski, one of the best refs in college basketball, openly admitted that he makes 4-7 mistakes/bad calls per game. The frustrating thing about arguing with rollo is that he never admits that the refs make mistakes sometimes. He think the refs are the second coming of Jesus Christ: perfect in every way.

I miss calls occasionally...not out of laziness or ineptness...but because I can't see everything even though I'm trying. But if I make a call, it's because I saw it.

How's that for a confession?

My new goal is to miss less calls than the average couch potato, which is going to be nearly impossible but I know at least 1 person who has mastered the game from their seat, so it can be done. Pray for me...and the potato's mental health. I think he cracked earlier.

[Bucketnight]

Can we just agree that based upon perspective and positioning that it is impossible to be a perfect ref and that is completely whiny to come on to a message board and complain about every missed call, act like it only goes against us, and that it was one of the main contributors to us losing?

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Bucketnight Can we just agree that based upon perspective and positioning that it is impossible to be a perfect ref

is rollo part of the "we"?

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo I miss calls occasionally...not out of laziness or ineptness...but because I can't see everything even though I'm trying. But if I make a call, it's because I saw it. How's that for a confession? My new goal is to miss less calls than the average couch potato, which is going to be nearly impossible but I know at least 1 person who has mastered the game from their seat, so it can be done. Pray for me...and the potato's mental health. I think he cracked earlier.

You're trying to conflate "missed call" with "implausible call". I'm not saying that. It's not binary, there are more than 2 states of a call a ref makes, it's not only "right" or "wrong". That's an immature response to the world.

I 100% agree that a ref can be in position and make the best call he can. It can be a PLAUSIBLE call (meaning, it's impossible to have absolute truth on whether a player was moving on a charge or perfectly set on a charge) while still being the WRONG call.

Was it a plausible result when the ref called a jumpball against Holmes? Yes. And when you say you "have no problem" with the call, I also have no problem with the call. It was both wrong AND I have no problem with it; I can hold both of those thoughts in my mind at the same time because I'm an adult not a 9 year old.

The difference is I can think rationally and look at the replay to say it was "wrong" while you insist that as long as it's plausible it's always right. I wasn't mad at the ref, the call was completely plausible. He was just wrong. It happens.

[Radar]

You two need to take this outside...

[Hyde Park Flyer]

I have a friend, Terry, who was a di football ref. He told me that one of his big lessons was learning to disarm a coach by telling him he didn’t see a call. He was very clear in saying that he could only call what he saw. If he didn’t see it, he couldn’t throw a flag. If a coach was yelling at him for not making a call and he didn’t see it, he had no problem letting the coach know. Would that be a missed call? Would it be a wrong call? I don’t think Terry saw it in those terms. I tend to agree that is wasn’t missed or wrong because that implies some level of fault by Terry. Instead, he could be correct. He could be in the right position and was watching the right part of the field. However, the call could be wrong in that other views of the play show that a penalty was committed. I tend to think that there are times where the ref is subjectively right while the objective truth is different. Make sense?
Posted via Mobile Device

[rollo]

There once was a Flyer named Gazoo
Whose obsession with Rollo was true
As he lounged in his recliner
His reffing knowledge somehow grew finer
But in reality, he will never have a clue.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo There once was a Flyer named Gazoo Whose obsession with Rollo was true As he lounged in his recliner His reffing knowledge somehow grew finer But in reality, he will never have a clue.

That's what people do when they're proven wrong.

Hey Rollo, SQUIRREL!

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo Whose obsession with Rollo was true

Says the guy who mentions my name every time someone mentions a ref....

[Don]

If it's possible to discuss an officiating question/comment dispassionately, I have an opinion I like comments on.
My impression is that many questionable calls result from the refs practice of keeping the whistle clenched in their teeth continuously during play. That lends itself to knee jerk blowing of the whistle when a ref thinks he sees an infraction and does not allow that extra split second to process logically what he thinks he just saw. Once that whistle sounds the ref is committed to call something, right or wrong. If on the other hand an extra split second is used to think about what he/she saw before blowing the whistle, some, and probably most, of the questionable calls would never be made.
On the topic of questionable calls, my pet peeve is the 50/50 nature of most of the charge/blocking calls. I'd venture to say that film analysis of these calls would demonstrate that the wrong call is made 50% of the time. My thinking is that it would be a better game if these calls were never made at all. Let the contact occur and the participants accept the consequences.
Thoughts?

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Don Thoughts?

So you think delayed whistles and running over/thru players will make the officiating better?

Tell Grandpa Gazoo that King Rollo disagrees.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo That's what people do when they're proven wrong. Hey Rollo, SQUIRREL!

Do you prefer 'Hickory Dickory Dock' rhymes?

[The Fly]

Here’s a rhyme for you both ...

Gazoo and Rollo, sittin’ in a tree,
Bi-t-c-h-i-n-g.
First came laughs, then came zzzz’s,
Spare us all and end this please!

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo Says the guy who mentions my name every time someone mentions a ref....

Says the guy who starts threads with my name…
Posted via Mobile Device

[Chris R]

Where's TV Teddy when you need him to whistle a double flagrant-1 on UDPride.

[rollo]

Double flagrant or intentional? Technical or personal? Felony or misdemeanor?

It’s a complicated job. For those man enough to do it.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Don]

Originally Posted by rollo So you think delayed whistles and running over/thru players will make the officiating better? Tell Grandpa Gazoo that King Rollo disagrees.

It will make the games better. Players wouldn’t get in foul trouble because of 50% calls. The officiating will be better because they will make fewer wrong calls. As for the players, after the first few collisions they will adjust. They will think twice if the collision hurts and doesn’t achieve any benefit. I actually think it might reduce collisions if dribblers know they won’t be rewarded for contact and miss the shot as a result of the collision. Maybe kids would learn pull-up jumpers.

[jack72]

Originally Posted by Don It will make the games better. Players wouldn’t get in foul trouble because of 50% calls. The officiating will be better because they will make fewer wrong calls. As for the players, after the first few collisions they will adjust. They will think twice if the collision hurts and doesn’t achieve any benefit. I actually think it might reduce collisions if dribblers know they won’t be rewarded for contact and miss the shot as a result of the collision. Maybe kids would learn pull-up jumpers.

Seriously, have you ever watched a football game, or better yet played football? It hurts a lot but you keep running through walls.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Don]

Originally Posted by jack72 Seriously, have you ever watched a football game, or better yet played football? It hurts a lot but you keep running through walls. Posted via Mobile Device

And its a better game for not calling that sort of contact. It's what they call part of the game.

[Piqua Flyer '66]

"White" hair ref (I see him on every night reffing so he must be good) called palming/carrying on Mali Smith tonight. I watched it on my dvr replay when I got home and yes Mali carried it........but that has not been enforced in 30 years

[CT Flyer]

Originally Posted by Piqua Flyer '66 "White" hair ref (I see him on every night reffing so he must be good) called palming/carrying on Mali Smith tonight. I watched it on my dvr replay when I got home and yes Mali carried it........but that has not been enforced in 30 years

That ref is Brian O'Connell and yes, he is considered one of the best. I'll let everyone make their own call on that one.

Agreed that the palming/carry call is rarely called these days. They did however call the UCLA PG last year during the Final Four for a carry and people were up in arms because it's almost never called.

[rollo]

Is it just me, or does Elvis tend to do a backward bunny-hop/step-back when he shoots a contested 3? From my comfy couch, it looks that way. I should borrow my father-in-law's BarcaLounger and watch it again on the DVR...then and only then will I be able to make the correct call.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by rollo So you think delayed whistles and running over/thru players will make the officiating better? Tell Grandpa Gazoo that King Rollo disagrees.

Seriously am I still renting space in your head for free?

[Gazoo]

I'm not sure if you all felt it today, but the multiverse split right in front of our eyes. The ref made a call, and then the other ref made the opposite call. They got together and made the CORRECT call, but since (by definition) both refs were right, the universe split.

There is now one universe where one ref correctly saw Dayton touch the ball last, and one where the other ref correctly saw Duquesne touch the ball last.

	Duquesne DUQUESNE Duquesne University is a private, coeducational university, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania located on 48 secluded acres, on a bluff above downtown. Founded in 1878 as a Catholic college by the Order of the Holy Spirit. It is the only Spiritan institution of higher education in the world. Duquesne offers 10 schools of study and 100 degree programs to 6,000 undergraduates and 3,800 graduate students. Fellow members of the A10 Conference. Nickname is the Dukes.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Gazoo I'm not sure if you all felt it today, but the multiverse split right in front of our eyes. The ref made a call, and then the other ref made the opposite call. They got together and made the CORRECT call, but since (by definition) both refs were right, the universe split. There is now one universe where one ref correctly saw Dayton touch the ball last, and one where the other ref correctly saw Duquesne touch the ball last.

To be expected when refs have the whistle clenched in their teeth. No time to process what they saw before they call something. Give them credit....they're right 50% of the time.