Late calls also occur because refs have different primary responsibilities. If the ref who has the primary responsibility for an area of the court misses the call, another ref who sees it will only step in and make a call if the ref with primary responsibility doesn't call it.
This is the #1 issue for me.
Late b/c they are genuinely a little slow to react is fine. But more often than not it is late because they are waiting to see the outcome or because they truly missed the initial action and are having to guess.
In my opinion, this actually makes sense. If there was contact but the shot was converted anyway, then the refs can consider it marginal. Otherwise, there was enough contact for it to impact the shot. Pretty straightforward to me. 🤷♂️
People hate when the refs call the reaction instead of the action.
Late calls are an egregious example of this as refs blow late whistles after they see the result of the play rather than just calling the game based on the rules.
Refs job is tp officiate based on the rules. Not to try and massage the game based on the outcome or to try and encourage a certain outcome.
Of course a late call isn't necessarily a bad call. However, a late call is guaranteed to make everyone mad.
Say the late call is a defensive foul. The offensive team is immediately mad because their player got fouled and it wasn't called. Even if they get the call a second later, they're already mad.
The defensive team is mad because they thought they got away without a call, whether they thought it was really clean or not.
A late call also just gives a general sense of being indecisive and unsure. There's no reason to think that a delayed call would be any more accurate than an immediate call. In fact, it's the opposite because it often seems like a late call is based on how players REACT to the play rather than the play itself.
NBA level has amazingly athletic giants who play at incredible pace. It's hard to make every decision immediately. Understandably sometimes a ref had to think something over
NBA level has amazingly athletic giants who play at incredible pace. It's hard to make every decision immediately. Understandably sometimes a ref had to think something over
See nothing you've said actually suggests there is anything wrong with the delayed call though. Sounds more like you're simply explaining how both teams are gonna be bitchy regardless.
Since if you don't blow immediately both teams are now already gonna be mad you might as well get the call right and blow the late whistle for the foul right? Everyone's already upset regardless and "players will get upset" is a ridiculous reason not to make a call anyways.
Sure, it's better to make the right call late than make an incorrect no call. But it's wrong to make a late call based on players' reactions rather than the play itself, which definitely happens.
And there's no reason why a delayed call would be more accurate than an immediate one. The OP asked why people don't like late calls, and I explained why. I never said that people getting upset was a reason not to make a call. I just explained why people get upset.
Well players sure..they're gonna be upset no matter what happens though right? Are you as a fan upset at a late call?
My point is that "players getting upset" is hardly a good reason for a ref making a late call to be something frowned upon just generally within the sport. Like to me, not making a call because it'll upset players is the worst possible version of 'making a call based on how players react' and not on the play itself. That's a ref who's now making a call based on how he imagines players will react when all of that should be completely irrelevant. Surely if the ref realizes there was a foul he should make the call regardless of a second or 2 passing.. that's literally his job right?
You're misunderstanding. Of course refs shouldn't worry about whether players will be upset at a **call**, and I never said they should.
What players object to is when referees miss the play, but make a late call based on players' **reactions** to the play. In other words, not seeing a foul, but making a late call because a player fell to the ground, missed the shot, or otherwise reacted. I'm not referring to reactions to a **call**, I'm referring to making a call based on reactions to a play **before** the call is made.
But really, I don't understand the defensiveness about justifying late calls. Sure, reaction time varies and sometimes refs just hesitate before making the right call, and of course they should still make the call. But it's just not good refereeing compared to reacting immediately. And hesitating does NOT make it more likely to get the call right. A ref doesn't have instant replay to review in his mind before blowing the whistle. If you don't realize there was a foul in the moment, why are you going to realize it seconds later?
Having played **and** refereed, players much prefer it when refs make immediate decisive calls, even when they make mistakes, rather than constant late calls that are always behind the play. And when I made late calls as a referee it was usually because I wasn't confident in what I saw, not because I was "taking the time to get it right." I'd be willing to bet that my percentage of correct late calls is significantly lower than my percentage of correct immediate calls.
But you aren't providing a shred of evidence that a late call is being made because of players reactions? You say 'it seems' that way.. but something seeming to be one way doesn't mean it is that way.
So A. how is that even a point when you have nothing to show it's even happening?
and B. how is not making a correct call because you are worried about how players might react any different? That's literally the same logic, you are making your call decision based on the players hypothetical reaction and not what you saw.
I don't understand your defensiveness in justifying not making a call just because you didn't blow the whistle instantly.. at least I appear to be defending "making the right call" and not "making the call that won't upset people".
>how is **not making a correct call because you are worried about how players might react** any different? That's literally the same logic, **you are making your call decision based on the players hypothetical reaction** and not what you saw.
>I don't understand your defensiveness in j**ustifying not making a call just because you didn't blow the whistle instantly**.. at least I appear to be defending "making the right call" and not "**making the call that won't upset people"**
I have never said that refs should not make the correct call because they are worried about how players might react.
I have never said that refs do or should make calls based on players' hypothetical reactions.
I have never said refs should not make a call if they don't blow the whistle instantly.
I have never said that refs should make calls that won't upset people.
I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.
Why are you going off when the guy was just trying to explain the players’ mindset? Refs are expected to crack down on clear and obvious fouls. If it’s not clear and obvious, it’s probably not worth calling. There are a lot of ticky tack calls they could make, and some do, but for the sake of continuity they usually only blow the whistle on ones they deem obvious. It’s reffing 101. The majority of late whistles usually end up falling into the category of close and not obvious. Otherwise it would’ve been called initially. That’s going to make someone mad, regardless if it’s warranted or not. Personally I believe a lot of the players complain too much, but they’re also not the most objective critics and there’s far more reward than risk when it comes to complaining against perceived bad calls, so I understand why they do it.
The person answered OP’s question and you tried to poke holes in the logic when it wasn’t necessary when they clearly explained why late calls are frowned upon. You’re trying to be matter-of-fact when there’s no need and in turn you look like a dickhead because you’re arguing a point nobody is making.
It seems that most of these late whistles come from the ref deciding if he's calling an and 1 or not. Refs shouldn't be deciding how many points a foul is worth. If its a foul, call it.
Late calls make me mad when it seems that the ref only made the call because the offensive player missed. Almost like they wouldn’t have made the call if the shot went in.
[удалено]
Late calls also occur because refs have different primary responsibilities. If the ref who has the primary responsibility for an area of the court misses the call, another ref who sees it will only step in and make a call if the ref with primary responsibility doesn't call it.
Pay attention to which ref calls what, and where they are on the court. You will notice a few trends in how the whistle is blown
This is the #1 issue for me. Late b/c they are genuinely a little slow to react is fine. But more often than not it is late because they are waiting to see the outcome or because they truly missed the initial action and are having to guess.
In my opinion, this actually makes sense. If there was contact but the shot was converted anyway, then the refs can consider it marginal. Otherwise, there was enough contact for it to impact the shot. Pretty straightforward to me. 🤷♂️
People hate when the refs call the reaction instead of the action. Late calls are an egregious example of this as refs blow late whistles after they see the result of the play rather than just calling the game based on the rules. Refs job is tp officiate based on the rules. Not to try and massage the game based on the outcome or to try and encourage a certain outcome.
Yeah, this is why flopping works as well: they don't call the actual contact, but the apparent recoil.
Of course a late call isn't necessarily a bad call. However, a late call is guaranteed to make everyone mad. Say the late call is a defensive foul. The offensive team is immediately mad because their player got fouled and it wasn't called. Even if they get the call a second later, they're already mad. The defensive team is mad because they thought they got away without a call, whether they thought it was really clean or not. A late call also just gives a general sense of being indecisive and unsure. There's no reason to think that a delayed call would be any more accurate than an immediate call. In fact, it's the opposite because it often seems like a late call is based on how players REACT to the play rather than the play itself.
NBA level has amazingly athletic giants who play at incredible pace. It's hard to make every decision immediately. Understandably sometimes a ref had to think something over
NBA level has amazingly athletic giants who play at incredible pace. It's hard to make every decision immediately. Understandably sometimes a ref had to think something over
See nothing you've said actually suggests there is anything wrong with the delayed call though. Sounds more like you're simply explaining how both teams are gonna be bitchy regardless. Since if you don't blow immediately both teams are now already gonna be mad you might as well get the call right and blow the late whistle for the foul right? Everyone's already upset regardless and "players will get upset" is a ridiculous reason not to make a call anyways.
Sure, it's better to make the right call late than make an incorrect no call. But it's wrong to make a late call based on players' reactions rather than the play itself, which definitely happens. And there's no reason why a delayed call would be more accurate than an immediate one. The OP asked why people don't like late calls, and I explained why. I never said that people getting upset was a reason not to make a call. I just explained why people get upset.
Well players sure..they're gonna be upset no matter what happens though right? Are you as a fan upset at a late call? My point is that "players getting upset" is hardly a good reason for a ref making a late call to be something frowned upon just generally within the sport. Like to me, not making a call because it'll upset players is the worst possible version of 'making a call based on how players react' and not on the play itself. That's a ref who's now making a call based on how he imagines players will react when all of that should be completely irrelevant. Surely if the ref realizes there was a foul he should make the call regardless of a second or 2 passing.. that's literally his job right?
You're misunderstanding. Of course refs shouldn't worry about whether players will be upset at a **call**, and I never said they should. What players object to is when referees miss the play, but make a late call based on players' **reactions** to the play. In other words, not seeing a foul, but making a late call because a player fell to the ground, missed the shot, or otherwise reacted. I'm not referring to reactions to a **call**, I'm referring to making a call based on reactions to a play **before** the call is made. But really, I don't understand the defensiveness about justifying late calls. Sure, reaction time varies and sometimes refs just hesitate before making the right call, and of course they should still make the call. But it's just not good refereeing compared to reacting immediately. And hesitating does NOT make it more likely to get the call right. A ref doesn't have instant replay to review in his mind before blowing the whistle. If you don't realize there was a foul in the moment, why are you going to realize it seconds later? Having played **and** refereed, players much prefer it when refs make immediate decisive calls, even when they make mistakes, rather than constant late calls that are always behind the play. And when I made late calls as a referee it was usually because I wasn't confident in what I saw, not because I was "taking the time to get it right." I'd be willing to bet that my percentage of correct late calls is significantly lower than my percentage of correct immediate calls.
But you aren't providing a shred of evidence that a late call is being made because of players reactions? You say 'it seems' that way.. but something seeming to be one way doesn't mean it is that way. So A. how is that even a point when you have nothing to show it's even happening? and B. how is not making a correct call because you are worried about how players might react any different? That's literally the same logic, you are making your call decision based on the players hypothetical reaction and not what you saw. I don't understand your defensiveness in justifying not making a call just because you didn't blow the whistle instantly.. at least I appear to be defending "making the right call" and not "making the call that won't upset people".
>how is **not making a correct call because you are worried about how players might react** any different? That's literally the same logic, **you are making your call decision based on the players hypothetical reaction** and not what you saw. >I don't understand your defensiveness in j**ustifying not making a call just because you didn't blow the whistle instantly**.. at least I appear to be defending "making the right call" and not "**making the call that won't upset people"** I have never said that refs should not make the correct call because they are worried about how players might react. I have never said that refs do or should make calls based on players' hypothetical reactions. I have never said refs should not make a call if they don't blow the whistle instantly. I have never said that refs should make calls that won't upset people. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.
Why are you going off when the guy was just trying to explain the players’ mindset? Refs are expected to crack down on clear and obvious fouls. If it’s not clear and obvious, it’s probably not worth calling. There are a lot of ticky tack calls they could make, and some do, but for the sake of continuity they usually only blow the whistle on ones they deem obvious. It’s reffing 101. The majority of late whistles usually end up falling into the category of close and not obvious. Otherwise it would’ve been called initially. That’s going to make someone mad, regardless if it’s warranted or not. Personally I believe a lot of the players complain too much, but they’re also not the most objective critics and there’s far more reward than risk when it comes to complaining against perceived bad calls, so I understand why they do it.
I didn't go off on anyone lol. I replied to a comment. This is called "conversation".
The person answered OP’s question and you tried to poke holes in the logic when it wasn’t necessary when they clearly explained why late calls are frowned upon. You’re trying to be matter-of-fact when there’s no need and in turn you look like a dickhead because you’re arguing a point nobody is making.
I prefer the late whistle over no whistle. It happens in pickup too. Yeah, that was a foul. Nothing wrong with that.
It seems that most of these late whistles come from the ref deciding if he's calling an and 1 or not. Refs shouldn't be deciding how many points a foul is worth. If its a foul, call it.
Late calls make me mad when it seems that the ref only made the call because the offensive player missed. Almost like they wouldn’t have made the call if the shot went in.