Showing posts with label blown call. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blown call. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
GET OUTTA MY WAY--IT'S APRIL FOOLS' DAY !!
Basketball Rules
Charging fouls are too prevalent, and inhibit the smooth flow of the game. They penalize the
player who drives to the basket--reducing point totals. It’s not fair for a player to make a strong move to the net only to have it ruined by someone who jumps in front--like a street bum hopping in front of a car for a payoff--it’s demeaning.
And how is the driver/shooter supposed to avoid contact? The rule should be modified so that once the player with the ball en route to the basket leaves his feet you cannot get a charge call for defenders who are not already in place. If a defender is set in the path of the driver before he takes off it could be an offensive foul if contact occurs while the driver is ascending, and a no-call if contact occurs while the driver is descending. But defenders who pop out in front of the basket while the driver is in the air deserve to be mowed down like bowling pins.
What’s a guy supposed to do when he’s flying in the air and some hotshot moron steps onto his landing strip? A collision is unavoidable, and it’s the defender’s fault. It isn’t good athleticism to hamstring great leapers.
Addendum 4/6/13
Undercutting the Game
I’m not going to say “I told you so”, but the bad charging call by an NCAA official in the closing seconds of tonight’s basketball game between Syracuse and Michigan likely cost Syracuse a berth in the championship game. These charging fouls are having way too much influence on the outcomes of big games! The whole spectacle of defenders “taking the charge” and dramatically flopping about is a perversion of good sportsmanship! Hey, if you can’t take the heat of the game inside the lane, you can just stick to the perimeter!
Many years ago, it took a Final Four travesty display by North Carolina’s team--of stalling the game once they got ahead--to compel the insertion of the shot clock. Hopefully there will be a reform of the charge call now, too.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Goal for World Cup: Get It Right!
Argentina's controversial goal in its World Cup round-of-16 win over Mexico is another example of the difficulty officials have when the demands put on them exceed the abilities of normal human vision. This goal marked the third time in the past few days (the second today) that officials obviously were wrong on a goal scored/not scored call.
The goal-scorer in this instance, Carlos Tevez, was clearly closer to the goal than any opponent--offsides--when the ball was kicked by Lionel Messi. We know that because we can view the instant replay from the side. However, no official was so fortuitously located.
The play, as is often the case in soccer, unfolded quickly. The offsides could not have been anticipated, and so no official could have hoped to get into a spot where he could view the play from that side angle.
In fact two defenders had Tevez nearly bracketed at the moment Messi kicked the ball, and by the time it reached Tevez, they were dead-even with him. The officials were naturally looking at Messi when he kicked it, and their eyes followed the ball to where it reached Tevez--who by then was no longer offsides.
The offsides rule is a difficult one to enforce accurately because it is based on where player A is when player B kicks the ball. Humans have two eyes but they cannot focus separately. We must shift our eyes'collective focus back and forth. During that process, time lapses and things change.
We can clearly see the advantages of instant replay: a choice of viewing angles, the ability to freeze the picture frame, repeat viewing.
So why not give each team the opportunity to challenge up to, say, two scoring/not scoring calls per game? In soccer, where every goal is critical, it makes sense to bring in the instant replay on goals scored/not scored calls.
Play is stopped for a while anyway after a goal while the scorers celebrate and then everyone moves to midfield area. Give the coach, say 30 seconds after goal is scored to protest it.
Have the fourth official hooked-up to review the instant replay immediately and if the call appears questionable, bring in the referee to decide it. The referee remains the final arbiter so his/her authority is not undermined.
If the call is upheld, the challenging team is one-and-done in that department. If the call is reversed, the challenging team can do so one more time.
It's a bit trickier with goals that should have been counted but were missed--like England's in loss to Germany or USA's in draw with Slovenia. That's partly because play ordinarily continues after the non-goal.
Perhaps an electronic monitor could be triggered whenever the plane of the goal is broken. But they'd need to be able to distinguish between the ball and a player (pattern recognition), and/or have "hits" referred to instant replay. Quickly flagging these possible missed goal calls would avoid interrupting fast breaks going the other way. They might take a cue from the National Hockey League's use of sirens.
This system would work in the cases like the English goal that wasn't seen by the referee. The electronic trigger would alert the fourth official who would check the videotape. If it looks like a score (ball completely over the goal line), the referee would be asked to make a determination. If, however, it's ultimately ruled no-goal, play would simply resume at the place the ball was last touched by the team last touching it.
Probably most difficult to correct are subjective situations such as the USA goal that was disallowed because the referee thought there was a foul by the Americans on the play. Since the ball went in the net, a point was taken off the scoreboard--so it should definitely be a challengeable call. The challenge should be restricted to the call that caused the goal to be disallowed.
The coach should be given 30 seconds from the time the goal is disallowed to challenge the call. The referee would then review the videotape to determine whether the disallowance should stand or a goal be tallied.
July 2, 2010
The headline question of the day is: Can Ghana Gana Again? (Or: Is Ghana Gonna Gana Again?)
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
The goal-scorer in this instance, Carlos Tevez, was clearly closer to the goal than any opponent--offsides--when the ball was kicked by Lionel Messi. We know that because we can view the instant replay from the side. However, no official was so fortuitously located.
The play, as is often the case in soccer, unfolded quickly. The offsides could not have been anticipated, and so no official could have hoped to get into a spot where he could view the play from that side angle.
In fact two defenders had Tevez nearly bracketed at the moment Messi kicked the ball, and by the time it reached Tevez, they were dead-even with him. The officials were naturally looking at Messi when he kicked it, and their eyes followed the ball to where it reached Tevez--who by then was no longer offsides.
The offsides rule is a difficult one to enforce accurately because it is based on where player A is when player B kicks the ball. Humans have two eyes but they cannot focus separately. We must shift our eyes'collective focus back and forth. During that process, time lapses and things change.
We can clearly see the advantages of instant replay: a choice of viewing angles, the ability to freeze the picture frame, repeat viewing.
So why not give each team the opportunity to challenge up to, say, two scoring/not scoring calls per game? In soccer, where every goal is critical, it makes sense to bring in the instant replay on goals scored/not scored calls.
Play is stopped for a while anyway after a goal while the scorers celebrate and then everyone moves to midfield area. Give the coach, say 30 seconds after goal is scored to protest it.
Have the fourth official hooked-up to review the instant replay immediately and if the call appears questionable, bring in the referee to decide it. The referee remains the final arbiter so his/her authority is not undermined.
If the call is upheld, the challenging team is one-and-done in that department. If the call is reversed, the challenging team can do so one more time.
It's a bit trickier with goals that should have been counted but were missed--like England's in loss to Germany or USA's in draw with Slovenia. That's partly because play ordinarily continues after the non-goal.
Perhaps an electronic monitor could be triggered whenever the plane of the goal is broken. But they'd need to be able to distinguish between the ball and a player (pattern recognition), and/or have "hits" referred to instant replay. Quickly flagging these possible missed goal calls would avoid interrupting fast breaks going the other way. They might take a cue from the National Hockey League's use of sirens.
This system would work in the cases like the English goal that wasn't seen by the referee. The electronic trigger would alert the fourth official who would check the videotape. If it looks like a score (ball completely over the goal line), the referee would be asked to make a determination. If, however, it's ultimately ruled no-goal, play would simply resume at the place the ball was last touched by the team last touching it.
Probably most difficult to correct are subjective situations such as the USA goal that was disallowed because the referee thought there was a foul by the Americans on the play. Since the ball went in the net, a point was taken off the scoreboard--so it should definitely be a challengeable call. The challenge should be restricted to the call that caused the goal to be disallowed.
The coach should be given 30 seconds from the time the goal is disallowed to challenge the call. The referee would then review the videotape to determine whether the disallowance should stand or a goal be tallied.
July 2, 2010
The headline question of the day is: Can Ghana Gana Again? (Or: Is Ghana Gonna Gana Again?)
Steven (Starjet) Kearney
Friday, June 4, 2010
Umpire's Mistake Explained
"Galarraga's Perfect Game Ruined by Umpire"--the headlines blare. Why did the umpire--Joyce--miss the obvious game-ending out call at first base? It seems he must have choked, right?
Maybe an explanation comes from the way baseball umpires are trained. On a bang-bang play like the one at first base, the umpire looks for the foot touching the base and LISTENS for the ball hitting the mitt. However, on this particular play, Galarraga caught the ball snow-cone style. So there was no sound of the ball going "thump" while impacting the pocket of the glove.
The reason umpires listen for the ball is a simple limitation of human vision. We can only focus on one spot at a time. The umpire at first base stands down the line several feet from the base. On this play--a grounder to the 1st baseman with the pitcher covering the base, the umpire needs to focus on the base at the crucial time because he must evaluate two things in that visual spot--the hitter's foot arriving and the pitcher's foot arriving and often groping for the base. If the umpire takes his eye off the base for a split second to look for the ball, he may miss the pitcher's foot touching or straying from the base, and so miss the call.
Why, then can we all watch this instant replay and see the call was wrong? To begin with, the speed is usually slow so we have time to go back and forth with our eyes. Furthermore, glove and base are much closer together in the field of view on a TV screen compared with what the umpire sees.
The grounder to first baseman off the bag with pitcher covering is one of the more difficult to handle defensively and to umpire. It involves an intricate interplay between four principals--pitcher, first baseman, hitter/runner and umpire. So many things can go wrong: pitcher slow to react gets to base late; pitcher pressed for time looks for throw while groping for base; 1st-baseman aims at base and misses pitcher or aims at pitcher and misses base; 1st baseman leads the pitcher just as he's stopping; 1st-baseman prematurely anticipates pitcher stopping so throw goes behind him; pitcher and hitter/runner get tangled up; controversial call by umpire involving pitcher's foot on/off bag or ball caught cleanly/juggled.
The subjective judgment of umpires is clearly a part of the game. This is most evident on ball/strike calls. It's also apparent on tags and diving catches in the outfield. Unfortunately, what sells an above-the-wall circus catch--snow-cone ball--is cause for doubt in the play at first as it brings up the issue of possession. Understanding that the umpire was listening for, not looking at the ball, any inclination he might've had to reverse his call was squelched by that protruding ball.
While it may seem crazy to us now that this umpire--Joyce--would error on the side of ruining the perfect game, consider what would've happened if on the instant replay it was obvious that Armando Galarraga was juggling the ball. Joyce would be mocked as the soft-hearted umpire, the "yes" man umpire, the blind umpire,the wimpire, and so on. Galarraga's deed would be called the imperfect game, the umperfect game, the Quote "perfect" game, and so on.
PS Regarding limits of human vision. Ditto in other sports. Basketball out-of-bounds ball contested by 2+ players: the referee needs to watch the ball to see who touches it last and also monitor contact for fouls. In Football on a fumble: the official needs to watch for the carrier's knee touching ground and also the ball coming loose unexpectedly and possibly the ball and/or the runner going out-of-bounds, as well as a bunch of players diving for the loose ball.
These sports have wisely implemented instant replay on plays such as these. Baseball would be wise to do so on plays like the one that cost Galarraga his no-hitter.
Maybe an explanation comes from the way baseball umpires are trained. On a bang-bang play like the one at first base, the umpire looks for the foot touching the base and LISTENS for the ball hitting the mitt. However, on this particular play, Galarraga caught the ball snow-cone style. So there was no sound of the ball going "thump" while impacting the pocket of the glove.
The reason umpires listen for the ball is a simple limitation of human vision. We can only focus on one spot at a time. The umpire at first base stands down the line several feet from the base. On this play--a grounder to the 1st baseman with the pitcher covering the base, the umpire needs to focus on the base at the crucial time because he must evaluate two things in that visual spot--the hitter's foot arriving and the pitcher's foot arriving and often groping for the base. If the umpire takes his eye off the base for a split second to look for the ball, he may miss the pitcher's foot touching or straying from the base, and so miss the call.
Why, then can we all watch this instant replay and see the call was wrong? To begin with, the speed is usually slow so we have time to go back and forth with our eyes. Furthermore, glove and base are much closer together in the field of view on a TV screen compared with what the umpire sees.
The grounder to first baseman off the bag with pitcher covering is one of the more difficult to handle defensively and to umpire. It involves an intricate interplay between four principals--pitcher, first baseman, hitter/runner and umpire. So many things can go wrong: pitcher slow to react gets to base late; pitcher pressed for time looks for throw while groping for base; 1st-baseman aims at base and misses pitcher or aims at pitcher and misses base; 1st baseman leads the pitcher just as he's stopping; 1st-baseman prematurely anticipates pitcher stopping so throw goes behind him; pitcher and hitter/runner get tangled up; controversial call by umpire involving pitcher's foot on/off bag or ball caught cleanly/juggled.
The subjective judgment of umpires is clearly a part of the game. This is most evident on ball/strike calls. It's also apparent on tags and diving catches in the outfield. Unfortunately, what sells an above-the-wall circus catch--snow-cone ball--is cause for doubt in the play at first as it brings up the issue of possession. Understanding that the umpire was listening for, not looking at the ball, any inclination he might've had to reverse his call was squelched by that protruding ball.
While it may seem crazy to us now that this umpire--Joyce--would error on the side of ruining the perfect game, consider what would've happened if on the instant replay it was obvious that Armando Galarraga was juggling the ball. Joyce would be mocked as the soft-hearted umpire, the "yes" man umpire, the blind umpire,the wimpire, and so on. Galarraga's deed would be called the imperfect game, the umperfect game, the Quote "perfect" game, and so on.
PS Regarding limits of human vision. Ditto in other sports. Basketball out-of-bounds ball contested by 2+ players: the referee needs to watch the ball to see who touches it last and also monitor contact for fouls. In Football on a fumble: the official needs to watch for the carrier's knee touching ground and also the ball coming loose unexpectedly and possibly the ball and/or the runner going out-of-bounds, as well as a bunch of players diving for the loose ball.
These sports have wisely implemented instant replay on plays such as these. Baseball would be wise to do so on plays like the one that cost Galarraga his no-hitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
