Alternatives to on court officials

[CYDJ]

I appreciate that college basketball officiating is difficult and kind of a no win situation. My question is, is there any way that we could have better officiating with a different kind of officiating?

I have watched a LOT of basketball in my years, I started rewinding calls I would make that officials would miss right around 1998. On those calls that I dispute I am right most of the time on travels, double dribbles and out of bounds. I can't definitively argue with block/charges and fouls on shots and blocks as I think they are a matter of opinion.

If you watch officials, they have a really tough job they have to run a lot, move according to the lead official and try to be in the right location to make a call, which, in certain situations is impossible. Not to mention that during the game the officials will rotate through the positions and hopefully they can be consistent with each other AND more importantly end to end, which in short spurts is difficult as two different people are calling the baselines and then the center and trail officials are calling certain things and areas based on where the lead is positioned. Consistency and what you can and can't do depends so much on the individual who is calling what and at what time.

With the advent of hi-def cameras and electronics being the way they are, why not have 4 or 5 people with the ability to switch their own consistent pre-positioned camera angles that specialize in certain areas of the floor, that call the same area of the floor for both teams for the entire game or maybe each person specializes in a certain area of officiating like out of bounds, block / charge, traveling / double dribble / palming, How about one person that watches dead ball stuff like killing the ball or coaches outside the box. you get the point. In this case, you may not like their calling, but hopefully it would be consistent (bad or good.) end to end and throughout the game. Consistency is key and with the way that officials have to call a game, it is difficult for three people to do.

Now, we likely still need on court officials to maintain control of the personal aspects of the game, coaches and players swearing, etc.

One advantage would be that the Bill Self could not play the refs, because they would be in a room somewhere with monitors, not sharing the floor with them.

You could actually even keep the officials totally anonymous, heck, why tell people who they are, they're not held accountable for anything anyway. However, they could be ridiculously tracked with analytics based on what they see, you could really get to the best of the best and they could practice all the time.

So, can it be done? What's your idea. Why should we stick with the status quo? You know you do a better job sitting at home than those guys on the floor do, right?

 

[cyfanatic13]

I just think the game has gotten too fast. I don't know the answer. Add a 4th official and just have two guys stay on each side of the court? I don't know how much that would help. I don't remember where I read an idea that I thought could be interesting, having an official at a higher angle and hopefully a better angle to see everything. I agree though that something needs to change. I've watched over half the games of the tournament so far and officiating has been pathetic.

 

[jctisu]

I appreciate that college basketball officiating is difficult and kind of a no win situation. My question is, is there any way that we could have better officiating with a different kind of officiating?

I have watched a LOT of basketball in my years, I started rewinding calls I would make that officials would miss right around 1998. On those calls that I dispute I am right most of the time on travels, double dribbles and out of bounds. I can't definitively argue with block/charges and fouls on shots and blocks as I think they are a matter of opinion.

If you watch officials, they have a really tough job they have to run a lot, move according to the lead official and try to be in the right location to make a call, which, in certain situations is impossible. Not to mention that during the game the officials will rotate through the positions and hopefully they can be consistent with each other AND more importantly end to end, which in short spurts is difficult as two different people are calling the baselines and then the center and trail officials are calling certain things and areas based on where the lead is positioned. Consistency and what you can and can't do depends so much on the individual who is calling what and at what time.

With the advent of hi-def cameras and electronics being the way they are, why not have 4 or 5 people with the ability to switch their own consistent pre-positioned camera angles that specialize in certain areas of the floor, that call the same area of the floor for both teams for the entire game or maybe each person specializes in a certain area of officiating like out of bounds, block / charge, traveling / double dribble / palming, How about one person that watches dead ball stuff like killing the ball or coaches outside the box. you get the point. In this case, you may not like their calling, but hopefully it would be consistent (bad or good.) end to end and throughout the game. Consistency is key and with the way that officials have to call a game, it is difficult for three people to do.

Now, we likely still need on court officials to maintain control of the personal aspects of the game, coaches and players swearing, etc.

One advantage would be that the Bill Self could not play the refs, because they would be in a room somewhere with monitors, not sharing the floor with them.

You could actually even keep the officials totally anonymous, heck, why tell people who they are, they're not held accountable for anything anyway. However, they could be ridiculously tracked with analytics based on what they see, you could really get to the best of the best and they could practice all the time.

So, can it be done? What's your idea. Why should we stick with the status quo? You know you do a better job sitting at home than those guys on the floor do, right?

Basketball is extremely hard to officiate. I think honestly it would take something far down the road where the AI is so advanced it can basically be an official on the court (whether that be a robot or whatever) but it can be programmed to exactly what each foul, violation etc. is and can process it so fast when it sees it that the margin for error is like 1-2%. I am talking being able to see and detect the slightest things like a player getting all ball or hitting the hand/fingers on a shot for a foul. At this point in time that doesn't exist at the level they would need it to. But that is a long ways off.

 

[crawfy54]

I appreciate that college basketball officiating is difficult and kind of a no win situation. My question is, is there any way that we could have better officiating with a different kind of officiating?

I have watched a LOT of basketball in my years, I started rewinding calls I would make that officials would miss right around 1998. On those calls that I dispute I am right most of the time on travels, double dribbles and out of bounds. I can't definitively argue with block/charges and fouls on shots and blocks as I think they are a matter of opinion.

If you watch officials, they have a really tough job they have to run a lot, move according to the lead official and try to be in the right location to make a call, which, in certain situations is impossible. Not to mention that during the game the officials will rotate through the positions and hopefully they can be consistent with each other AND more importantly end to end, which in short spurts is difficult as two different people are calling the baselines and then the center and trail officials are calling certain things and areas based on where the lead is positioned. Consistency and what you can and can't do depends so much on the individual who is calling what and at what time.

With the advent of hi-def cameras and electronics being the way they are, why not have 4 or 5 people with the ability to switch their own consistent pre-positioned camera angles that specialize in certain areas of the floor, that call the same area of the floor for both teams for the entire game or maybe each person specializes in a certain area of officiating like out of bounds, block / charge, traveling / double dribble / palming, How about one person that watches dead ball stuff like killing the ball or coaches outside the box. you get the point. In this case, you may not like their calling, but hopefully it would be consistent (bad or good.) end to end and throughout the game. Consistency is key and with the way that officials have to call a game, it is difficult for three people to do.

Now, we likely still need on court officials to maintain control of the personal aspects of the game, coaches and players swearing, etc.

One advantage would be that the Bill Self could not play the refs, because they would be in a room somewhere with monitors, not sharing the floor with them.

You could actually even keep the officials totally anonymous, heck, why tell people who they are, they're not held accountable for anything anyway. However, they could be ridiculously tracked with analytics based on what they see, you could really get to the best of the best and they could practice all the time.

So, can it be done? What's your idea. Why should we stick with the status quo? You know you do a better job sitting at home than those guys on the floor do, right?

I don't know enough about officiating to give a real opinion. But that is an interesting option to think about! Imagine the NFL going to that method (and still getting the calls wrong). Holding penalties especially could be judged far more accurately imo.

 

[CYber_saber]

I just think the game has gotten too fast. I don't know the answer. Add a 4th official and just have two guys stay on each side of the court? I don't know how much that would help. I don't remember where I read an idea that I thought could be interesting, having an official at a higher angle and hopefully a better angle to see everything. I agree though that something needs to change. I've watched over half the games of the tournament so far and officiating has been pathetic.

21st century this is. With all the tech and camera stuff, why not give teams to challenge those pathetic calls?

 

[I-stateTheTruth]

I can hear our fans now: "These awful Big 12 basketball engineers! They've programmed things to give KU all the calls ..."

 

[2020cy]

Maybe 4 refs, where two stay on baseline and two cover both sidelines. It would have been nice to challenge that kicking call where he obviously hit it with his hand.and a few others.

 

[SpokaneCY]

I don't know enough about officiating to give a real opinion. But that is an interesting option to think about! Imagine the NFL going to that method (and still getting the calls wrong). Holding penalties especially could be judged far more accurately imo.

At what point do you QUIT calling 3 holding penalties on each and every play in football? Out of bounds ball is an easy replay but we've seen multi-minute reviews which grinds the game to a halt.

The sport is filled with big, strong, fast athletes. Each and every one moves on screens to an extent, blocks to an extent, swings elbows to an extent. Calling the game with that much scrutiny would make the game unwatchable.

 

[Knownothing]

One of the worst part of officials is them calling a foul because they anticipate that the person did something instead of doing it. For example, the Bohanon 3 yesterday near the end of the Tennessee game. It appeared clean, so why did the ref call that foul. If it was clean he didn't actually see the foul at all. He just decided that something must have happened. I am not sure how the officials watching from a monitor could change that. I am guessing the biggest problem is they would still anticipate the foul being called and still get it wrong.

 

[SCNCY]

One thing to remember about being a referee in any sport is that they are all human. Some things are just too fast, or the referee is not in a position to see it. I was a referee for competitive soccer, and I know I've missed calls, even with having two sideline referees. Sometimes it's about being in the right position, other times something happened too fast to see, other times its a judgment call by the referee.

As an example, when I was playing in a competitive league soccer game, I had the ball and made a weak shot on goal at inside the 18-yard box. I had fallen down and the goalie picked up the ball. He quickly ran it up and kicked it out on the field. As I got up, the goalie stated walking back towards the goal. As we got closer, he randomly pushed me for no reason; I yelled to get the attention of the referee, which I did. Now, under the rules of the game, this is an automatic red card, however, because the referee nor the linesmen did not see it, they couldn't do anything about it. In soccer, you can only call what you see, and this is probably the same in football, basketball, etc.

 

[madguy30]

 

[3TrueFans]

Above the court officials, suspended from wires.

 

[cyfanatic13]

One thing to remember about being a referee in any sport is that they are all human. Some things are just too fast, or the referee is not in a position to see it. I was a referee for competitive soccer, and I know I've missed calls, even with having two sideline referees. Sometimes it's about being in the right position, other times something happened too fast to see, other times its a judgment call by the referee.

As an example, when I was playing in a competitive league soccer game, I had the ball and made a weak shot on goal at inside the 18-yard box. I had fallen down and the goalie picked up the ball. He quickly ran it up and kicked it out on the field. As I got up, the goalie stated walking back towards the goal. As we got closer, he randomly pushed me for no reason; I yelled to get the attention of the referee, which I did. Now, under the rules of the game, this is an automatic red card, however, because the referee nor the linesmen did not see it, they couldn't do anything about it. In soccer, you can only call what you see, and this is probably the same in football, basketball, etc.

Missed calls like that happen. Calling things that don't happen like the kicked ball, Shayok's out of bounds, the Bohannon 3... those shouldn't happen.

 

[ruxCYtable]

I haven't read all the responses so I apologize if I'm repeating.

I've posted this before but, as an official, I've been asked many times if I was going to create a new system, how would I do it? I'd put two officials on the court but have one in a "nest" above each basket looking down from above. He/she could either have a whistle and signal calls just like the others, or have a headset to relay calls directly to the table.

I agree with one comment I saw, the game has just gotten too fast for humans to officiate with a high degree of accuracy. The people doing the job are doing the best they can. They're not out to get anyone, they're not ass holes (most of them) and they care about doing the best job they can do. They're just human and that's all there is to it.

 

[CYDJ]

At what point do you QUIT calling 3 holding penalties on each and every play in football? Out of bounds ball is an easy replay but we've seen multi-minute reviews which grinds the game to a halt.

The sport is filled with big, strong, fast athletes. Each and every one moves on screens to an extent, blocks to an extent, swings elbows to an extent. Calling the game with that much scrutiny would make the game unwatchable.

I see your point, I agree with that. I don't want the game to slow down either. I just want to put the people making the calls in the best position to do so. I don't think they are there now and the method for arranging themselves on the court causes built in short term inconsistency.

Question; are we saying that now we just let some things go, but we couldn't do that with more technology? OR "It's a rule, but it doesn't need to be enforced (sometimes)?"

I definitely see where you are going with this, but maybe the rules need to be changed then.
Right now you say that the officials have leniency on what they call and when. Why would the "screen" officials not have the same leniency and should they?

This is not easy, I just want better and part of that might be employing more people and better technology in the process.

While we are at it, why in the heck are we using umpires to call balls and strikes when computers can do it so much better? Boggles the mind.

 

[Doc]

Above the court officials, suspended from wires.

With a release switch for when they make too many bad calls.

 

[ruxCYtable]

Missed calls like that happen. Calling things that don't happen like the kicked ball, Shayok's out of bounds, the Bohannon 3... those shouldn't happen.

Agreed. We call those "phantoms." When I train new officials I always tell them it is preferable to go to a coach and tell him/her you couldn't see something and you're not going to guess, rather than trying to justify something that didn't happen. He will disagree with you in the first case but he'll respect you. You will lose his respect in the second case.

When we went from two officials to three in high school basketball about 15 years ago, one of the adjustments I had to make was to never guess anymore. When there were only two of us, it was impossible to cover the court, especially in a 4A boys game, without doing some educated guessing. I worked on a good crew and we all got together and said there are three of us now. Use the system and DO. NOT. GUESS. It was a mantra before every game. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of guessing going on, even at the highest levels of basketball.

 

[CYDJ]

One of the worst part of officials is them calling a foul because they anticipate that the person did something instead of doing it. For example, the Bohanon 3 yesterday near the end of the Tennessee game. It appeared clean, so why did the ref call that foul. If it was clean he didn't actually see the foul at all. He just decided that something must have happened. I am not sure how the officials watching from a monitor could change that. I am guessing the biggest problem is they would still anticipate the foul being called and still get it wrong.

I usually account for a bad call being that the ref was not in position or not concentrating on that spot perfectly and just saw the aftermath. I'm hoping that the "screen" officials will be able to see what they need to see more easily than a guy or gal running around the floor, re-positioning themselves with each other and all these big strong dudes.

I also would hope that one person could be more consistent with the calls in a particular part of the floor than 3 can. If you know officiating (AND I DO NOT LIKE OTHERS HERE I AM SURE) you know that the floor and responsibilities are split among the 3 officials during the game. But, what makes people the most upset is when something is called at one end of the floor and not the other. An example: a guy gets a "clean" block by using his lower body to gain advantage on one end, then gets blocked with the EXACT same technique by an opposing player the next possession at the other end AND gets a foul. This inconsistency isn't because one dude decided to change how he called the play, it's because two different dudes are calling it on either end. I'm sure great officiating teams exist that get rid of this inconsistency. But I've known a few refs and they can rag on each other with the best of them, trust me.

I think the screen refs would be more consistent and even if they called both ends of the floor for a certain area the whole game.

And to your note, I'm not sure if the anticipation will go away. But, from what I have read, officials only call something when they are sure it happened, otherwise they let it go.

 

[cyfanatic13]

Agreed. We call those "phantoms." When I train new officials I always tell them it is preferable to go to a coach and tell him/her you couldn't see something and you're not going to guess, rather than trying to justify something that didn't happen. He will disagree with you in the first case but he'll respect you. You will lose his respect in the second case.

When we went from two officials to three in high school basketball about 15 years ago, one of the adjustments I had to make was to never guess anymore. When there were only two of us, it was impossible to cover the court, especially in a 4A boys game, without doing some educated guessing. I worked on a good crew and we all got together and said there are three of us now. Use the system and DO. NOT. GUESS. It was a mantra before every game. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of guessing going on, even at the highest levels of basketball.

Do you think going to four would help at all? I guess the way I envision it working would be kind of like 6 on 6 basketball. Two officials cover one half of the floor while the others are watching from either side at half court. Ball goes down to the other end and the two officials that were half court go down to the baseline while the other two officials go to halfcourt. It makes sense in my head but not sure how much it would help.

 

[ruxCYtable]

Do you think going to four would help at all? I guess the way I envision it working would be kind of like 6 on 6 basketball. Two officials cover one half of the floor while the others are watching from either side at half court. Ball goes down to the other end and the two officials that were half court go down to the baseline while the other two officials go to halfcourt. It makes sense in my head but not sure how much it would help.

It's a good question. But it would not change the fact that at court-level getting good angles is still going to be very difficult. I think if a change is to be made it has to be something radical, like getting officials looking down over the action, rather than trying to look through it.