A Word On Behalf of Refs

[JoePgh]

One way in which The Boneyard is no different from any other fan board is that posters here see incompetent refereeing whenever any close call or non-call goes against UConn. On other boards, they do exactly the same thing when the call or non-call goes against their team. Thankfully, most posters here and elsewhere acknowledge that bad calls almost never affect the outcome of the game, and are rarely systematically in favor of either team.

I wonder if most fans understand how difficult the referee's job is. The difficulty arises mainly from the fact that they have to make an instant decision, in far less than a second, as to whether they will blow their whistle, and if so, what they will call. In my daily work on my job, I don't believe I ever have to make a critical decision in a fraction of a second, much less a few dozen in the course of two hours. To do that game-in and game-out with an accuracy rate of even 80% would require Gabby-like reflexes and instant cognition, and I am not sure that is granted to very many mortal individuals.

The most demanding call is the charge/block situation near the basket. Because of the rules surrounding the "restricted area", the referee has to process: (a) were the defender's feet set? (b) was the offensive player into her shooting motion when the defender's feet became set? (c) did the defender lean or contort her body to move her position without moving her feet? (d) Were any part of the defender's feet inside the restricted area? and (e) was the defender the primary defender or a help defender (since the primary defender is allowed to earn a charge in the restricted area)? Could you process all of that in a quarter of a second?

Traveling is another example. At Monday night's game, there were several plays where Gabby caught a pass in traffic and was immediately called for traveling. The crowd reacted very negatively to those calls, but on replay they looked justifiable to me. But I'll be honest -- I don't see (in real time) 70 to 80% of the traveling calls that are made. On slow-motion replay, most of them turn out to be correct. That also requires a quarter-second decision by the referee as to whether the ball was or was not out of the player's hands when she moved her pivot foot.

The other point that I would make about this is that fan complaints about refereeing are constant across all sports and at all levels. Do you think that MCBB draws fewer complaints about the reffing? Guess again. The NBA? The NHL? The NFL? Fans always think that their team's latest loss can be attributed to a bad call by a ref who is either blind or who consciously favors the other team.

Give it a rest.

P. S. In the next 10 years, I wonder if many refereeing decisions can be automated, so that a computer processing a video image of the action could make the call or at least the review. I think the technology is sufficiently advanced today that balls and strikes in baseball (including whether the batter checked his swing) could be automated, and it would probably improve the accuracy of those calls if that were done. I don't think it can be done today for basketball, but that is hopefully coming in 5 to 10 years.

 

[Sonny44]

That last part is the worst idea I ever heard.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

That last part is the worst idea I ever heard.

At least, not to rely on a machine. I am a supporter of limited "challenge reviews" in virtually any sport to try and get it right - but some coaches are like fans and always see the call against their team as suspect. So very limited, as it is now, for example, in football.

 

[mntncougar]

Grudgingly I agree with you for the most part, but some calls are particularly egregious and obvious. I think SC lost to Tenn on a bad call. And the charging call that put Pheesa out of the game Monday was a travesty. I think the technology is clearly there, and I believe the rules should be revised to give each coach 2 or 3 requests for a video review of the call. Amongst other things I think that would tend to cut down on the bias that some refs so obviously show because they would be shown up.

 

[Geew1992]

Last year, my daughter teammate was fouled. She told my daughter to take the free throws. The refs let her. No, it wasn't a technical foul. Ever since then, giving it a rest won't happen.

 

[HopJim]

Grudgingly I agree with you for the most part, but some calls are particularly egregious and obvious. I think SC lost to Tenn on a bad call. And the charging call that put Pheesa out of the game Monday was a travesty. I think the technology is clearly there, and I believe the rules should be revised to give each coach 2 or 3 requests for a video review of the call. Amongst other things I think that would tend to cut down on the bias that some refs so obviously show because they would be shown up.

A good friend of mine is a D1 mens ref and his opinion is that the best referees, like the players, are in the best shape. MidMajor men and womens games often are staffed by older, or "2nd tier" options. I have to agree since many of the worst calls appeared to be made by refs that were out of position. Doesn't matter if this caused by a physical or skill issue-have seen this too many times. Not sure how to fix other than rate refs and provide monetary incentives in terms of number of games good ones get or not.

 

[cohenzone]

At least, not to rely on a machine. I am a supporter of limited "challenge reviews" in virtually any sport to try and get it right - but some coaches are like fans and always see the call against their team as suspect. So very limited, as it is now, for example, in football.

One problem at the college level is that there are plenty of programs that are rarely televised. Do they have any taping systems they use so they can watch replays? If not, it results in somewhat of a different playing field.

 

[Geew1992]

One problem at the college level is that there are plenty of programs that are rarely televised. Do they have any taping systems they use so they can watch replays? If not, it results in somewhat of a different playing field.

I bridge they do. My daughter plays for a D3 school and they do

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Grudgingly I agree with you for the most part, but some calls are particularly egregious and obvious. I think SC lost to Tenn on a bad call. And the charging call that put Pheesa out of the game Monday was a travesty. I think the technology is clearly there, and I believe the rules should be revised to give each coach 2 or 3 requests for a video review of the call. Amongst other things I think that would tend to cut down on the bias that some refs so obviously show because they would be shown up.

The bias thing is difficult, because it is subjective. Let me give some examples -

- One referee (a blast from the past) liked a free flowing game. He was always going to call more fouls on Rutgers - playing a physical, break up the flow, kind of game. Other ref's would let it go. He didn't dislike Rutgers, he disliked the style of play.
- Another referee got annoyed with the constant flopping by a player on one team. On the 3rd or 4th flop, after having warned her, he gave her a blocking foul on what was obviously a no call. Wrong? Subjective, we have seen flopping discussions on the BY.
- Referees are given tendencies and info about teams before games. If so-and-so is noted as being highly physical in the notes, of course fouls are going to be called on her more often. If one team is known for lane camping and the other for a free moving offense - on an equal stay in the lane, which one gets the 3 second call?
- As I have often said, and I think most agree, different conferences have slightly different styles of refereeing. Whether this is driven by the style of play common in that conference or instructions from "above", I wouldn't presume to know, but come out here to the Pac12 and watch the refs - compare them to yours. Worse - have one of them ref one of your games.
- One coach complained constantly about calls. They got "T'd" up quick when they crossed the line. Others, who don't make a habit of complaining, get a longer fuse. But - certain ref's are more likely to T coaches than others. Scott Yarbrough - that someone accused of once giving Geno one - also gave one to Vivian. Like Geno, Vivian does not accumulate them. In this case, she didn't substitute after a 5th foul fast enough. By error, she hadn't realized it was a 5th (or her assistant tracking such things hadn't) and by the time the ref came over and stuck 5 fingers in her face, it was too late. Bias? or just a short fuse?

And there are many more examples. I don't think replays often show "institutional" bias so much as bias regarding the way the game should be played, what constitutes a foul (exactly) and how quick you blow the whistle. As former ref Nan Sisk commented to a fan who ribbed her for not calling a 5 second inbound - "We count slower down South". Not an easy job.

 

[Sonny44]

One way in which The Boneyard is no different from any other fan board is that posters here see incompetent refereeing whenever any close call or non-call goes against UConn. On other boards, they do exactly the same thing when the call or non-call goes against their team. Thankfully, most posters here and elsewhere acknowledge that bad calls almost never affect the outcome of the game, and are rarely systematically in favor of either team.

I wonder if most fans understand how difficult the referee's job is. The difficulty arises mainly from the fact that they have to make an instant decision, in far less than a second, as to whether they will blow their whistle, and if so, what they will call. In my daily work on my job, I don't believe I ever have to make a critical decision in a fraction of a second, much less a few dozen in the course of two hours. To do that game-in and game-out with an accuracy rate of even 80% would require Gabby-like reflexes and instant cognition, and I am not sure that is granted to very many mortal individuals.

The most demanding call is the charge/block situation near the basket. Because of the rules surrounding the "restricted area", the referee has to process: (a) were the defender's feet set? (b) was the offensive player into her shooting motion when the defender's feet became set? (c) did the defender lean or contort her body to move her position without moving her feet? (d) Were any part of the defender's feet inside the restricted area? and (e) was the defender the primary defender or a help defender (since the primary defender is allowed to earn a charge in the restricted area)? Could you process all of that in a quarter of a second?

Traveling is another example. At Monday night's game, there were several plays where Gabby caught a pass in traffic and was immediately called for traveling. The crowd reacted very negatively to those calls, but on replay they looked justifiable to me. But I'll be honest -- I don't see (in real time) 70 to 80% of the traveling calls that are made. On slow-motion replay, most of them turn out to be correct. That also requires a quarter-second decision by the referee as to whether the ball was or was not out of the player's hands when she moved her pivot foot.

The other point that I would make about this is that fan complaints about refereeing are constant across all sports and at all levels. Do you think that MCBB draws fewer complaints about the reffing? Guess again. The NBA? The NHL? The NFL? Fans always think that their team's latest loss can be attributed to a bad call by a ref who is either blind or who consciously favors the other team.

Give it a rest.

P. S. In the next 10 years, I wonder if many refereeing decisions can be automated, so that a computer processing a video image of the action could make the call or at least the review. I think the technology is sufficiently advanced today that balls and strikes in baseball (including whether the batter checked his swing) could be automated, and it would probably improve the accuracy of those calls if that were done. I don't think it can be done today for basketball, but that is hopefully coming in 5 to 10 years.

I do know what you are saying Joe. I was a HS baseball umpire and a HS wrestling referee, both thankless jobs which will never make anyone rich.

 

[cohenzone]

I bridge they do. My daughter plays for a D3 school and they do

Thanks

 

[victor64]

A couple of thoughts.

I am not a fan of replays. It lengthens an already too long game and makes the officials hesitant.

The quantity of good officials has decreased. Who wants to go do something where you get yelled at and named called for two hours? The pay is ok but not enough.

Coaches have scouting reports on officials also. They game plan with them in mind.

The best officials go where they are paid the most, can see the best talent or games and at the best venues. Other than UConn and a few other places, officials would prefer not go to Tulsa versus Cincinnati women's game where there are 500 people in the stands.

Have you noticed that Geno has mellowed somewhat in his approach to officials? Probably sarcasm and subtle comments but not the frequent outbursts like the old days. Plus UConn kids complain less than most schools. On to the next play...

Obviously, UConn has had some spotty cases of officiating this year and survived. As thin as they are on the bench, officiating is a major concern down the stretch. I bet if officiating does factor into an eventual loss this year, Geno will not use it as an excuse. He isn't allowed to publicly but privately he will admit there is nothing he can do about things he can't control. Even if he requests a certain official never to work a game for him in the future , it won't change the output.

 

[mntncougar]

Have you noticed that Geno has mellowed somewhat in his approach to officials? Probably sarcasm and subtle comments but not the frequent outbursts like the old days. Plus UConn kids complain less than most schools. On to the next play..

Or it might be he's gotten shy of the claw marks from CD holding him back.

 

[mntncougar]

One problem at the college level is that there are plenty of programs that are rarely televised. Do they have any taping systems they use so they can watch replays? If not, it results in somewhat of a different playing field.

I have no idea what the answer to that is and it's a good question. However, with the widespread use in coaching and sharing of game videos, I suspect that just about every D1 team has some level of taping of games.

 

[cohenzone]

I have no idea what the answer to that is and it's a good question. However, with the widespread use in coaching and sharing of game videos, I suspect that just about every D1 team has some level of taping of games.

I mean during the game so the refs can go to a monitor to see the kinds of stuff they check for in the televised games on replay. My guess the games themselves are taped for team use, but maybe only one angle

 

[Bronxjeff]

One very interesting analysis that came up in a different thread on this same at times infuriating topic:

Officiating can seem particularly biased when the reffing crew hasn't gotten in synch with each other on the typical disputed type calls. The result is even though each ref may be being consistent, because they cover 3/4 of the court each team is getting different biases. For example, ref A is under your basket and calls a block even though the offensive player dipped her shoulder and flew out of control into your guard, while ref B calls your player for a charge despite the defender moving their feet into your guard. Well Ref A is at the outside wing on that call, whereas a ref B wasn't on the call in the first place. So sometimes it can take a whole game to even out the bad calls.

I don't remember who explained this earlier in the year, but they did a better job of it and impressed me, so I hope they might chime in again.

 

[Blueballer]

I'm not going to give anything a rest until the quality of officiating improves. Some of the calls that are made are brutally bad. Fortunately our team usually makes sure we rarely come down to a one possession game that can be decided by a bad call. Otherwise there's no way we would get 100 straight wins.

 

[Zorro]

I just watched the SC game and it seemed to me there were at least 6 highly questionable calls and/or no calls; the no-contact foul on Lou, the first foul on Phee that looked like a text-book clean block, the outrageous charge on Phee, and maybe the charge that Saniya took a minute or two later AND the forearm shots to the face that Lou took in the first quarter and Crystal in the third or fourth (I forget which).

Of course refs are not and cannot be expected to be perfect, but I really thought that crew's performance was unusually bad. I think that if we play them again at the dance, we win by 20 or more.

 

[Huskie78]

At Monday night's game, there were several plays where Gabby caught a pass in traffic and was immediately called for traveling. The crowd reacted very negatively to those calls

And I recall one of those had a very "colorful" response from the UCONN faithfull. lol

 

[bags27]

Thank you so very, very much JoePgh for such words of wisdom.

BTW, I'm sure Lou traveled (caught the ball and hopped with both feet) on her first made shot. Just sayin....

 

[ThisJustIn]

I just watched the SC game and it seemed to me there were at least 6 highly questionable calls and/or no calls; the no-contact foul on Lou, the first foul on Phee that looked like a text-book clean block, the outrageous charge on Phee, and maybe the charge that Saniya took a minute or two later AND the forearm shots to the face that Lou took in the first quarter and Crystal in the third or fourth (I forget which).

Of course refs are not and cannot be expected to be perfect, but I really thought that crew's performance was unusually bad. I think that if we play them again at the dance, we win by 20 or more.

Jess wunderin - do you think that if a SC fan watched it they would see 6 highly questionable calls/no calls? Slow mo, angle all play into what the refs see/don't see.

Some thoughtful discussion above about challenges and skill sets needed. Clearly, the issue of officiating is huge across the platforms. They're getting slammed at the pro and college level.

The big issue is money. It takes a long time to get to the DI level - and climbing that ladder means hours of travel, stinky pay, and a primary job with lots of flexibility. That being said, I don't know if more training would elevate the skill level or not. It's a thankless job - and just like in teaching, the lack of respect for the position is pushing folks out and/or away.

 

[willtalk]

A lot of good points addressed by previous posters. I think the main problem with officiating especially in high tempo games like football and basketball, is that it has not progressed with the game. All sports used to be played purely for recreation and officials were pulled literally out of the stands. Most of the time they were ex players. As the level of the sports advanced the officiating drug slowly behind. It takes specific skills to be a good official. One has to be in good shape, have excellent vision and be able to process that visual information very quickly. The problem is that those that do not possess these skills are not weeded out early enough so that the officials are just the best of a bad lot. To officiate at most levels one just needs to apply and know the rules.

What I would suggest is that officiating be treated like a vocation. It should be taught in school like any other vocation. Those who do not possess the modicum of visual, physical or intellectual standards should be weeded out before even being accepted. Even the officials in the NFL were long treated as purely a part time'rs. Hey we have a local high school principle who was lead official in a past Super Bowl. The games ( college and Pro) are too important and involve too much money to have part timers deciding games. They had a billion dollar product controlled by a mom and pow level officiating operation. There will always be mistakes and wrong calls being made, but at least those who do not have the qualifications could be weeded out early.

 

[watanabe]

Joepgh,
How can you take the side of the officials?

Who cares about them, they're always wrong.

Its the x-factor carefully calculated to throw the game off. Otherwise it'd be boring.
You are missing the entire point of having the ref's in the first place!

 

[willtalk]

They also need to play basketball games bare foot with the fans being allowed to throw handfuls of thumb tacks on the floor during time outs.

 

[watanabe]

They also need to play basketball games bare foot with the fans being allowed to throw handfuls of thumb tacks on the floor during time outs.

Shoots, we will have to laugh alot for next year. Tacks sounds like a great idea, not practical, but cool as heck. Attendance would be through the roof at every game (I know it will be anyway).

How about overinflated balls, lol. I feel like I'm on Reddit now.