consistency

Question
QUESTION: Bret,
My question applies to many sports, but NCAA bb seems to bring it up most often.
In my opinion, the most outrageous statement I hear regarding officiating is along the lines of "...players needing to adjust to way the game is being called."
How unfair is that?
Thanks, Paul

ANSWER: Paul,

This happens to be a fantastic question, and your the first person ever to bring this up to me since I've been on this website. So kudos to you for a very intelligent inquiry.

The truth of the matter is, in certain sports like basketball and baseball, officials/umpires can and do call the game differently. Not so much in terms of the rules of the game, but for instance, different Home Plate Umpires in Baseball have strike zones that vary. Some like to call high strikes. Some will give the outside corner more than others. In that situation for example the batters have to adjust to that particular umpire's strike zone.

In basketball,  calls that are violations are not interpretations of the rules, but rather they are very concrete, are not ambiguous, and are normally called with consistency among all officials. Fouls on the other hand, can at times be very subjective. Meaning, what one official sees as a foul, another may let go. In certain games officials may decide to call the game "tight" and in other instances they may decide to call it more loosely. It may depend on the level of play, whether it's a regular season game or a playoff. Officials come together prior to the game and have a pre-game meeting to decide how they want to call the game. They may discuss certain match-ups and come to a conclusion on how they want to call it. For instance two teams playing might each have two dominant centers that like to post up on one another. Low post play involves a lot of contact, so the players have to adjust to how much contact the officials are going to allow.

Again to summarize, specifically for Basketball, it's not unfair for the players to have to adjust to how the officials call the game. There is an understanding among players and coaches, that different officiating crews have different styles and also different years of experience which also comes into play as to how a game gets called.

I hope that cleared your question up and brought a little more insight as to how we call the game.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Bret,
Thanks for the response.
I have been a multi sports fan since the sixties, and I'm well aware of all the things you mentioned.  This does not answer for me the question of why.
Why should the officials be allowed to call different due to any number of reasons?  Why can't the players know what the rules are (and yes, interpreting or applying a rule differently is changing a rule) before they go onto the floor, before they prepare in a certain way, before they are recruited and coached a certain way.
Just because there is an "understanding" does not make it right.  I'm pretty sure that most players hate it, but have been taught that they have to live with it.
I would guess that most coaches don't like it either, but feel trapped in a bad system.
I believe that nearly all officials are extremely talented and able, and I appreciate the difficulty of their jobs.
I believe (because in some sports it is done) that if forced to, officials can be much more consistent (both with themselves and other officials).
Since they are not forced to, I'm led to believe that the "understanding" is way above the heads of the officials and coaches.
So the next question is why do league administrators allow it to continue?
Respectfully,
Paul

ANSWER: Paul,

I can certainly understand where your coming from, and how that might sound frustrating. For the most part like you said, we as officials call the games pretty constantly.  Basketball is the most difficult sport to officiate. The calls we make are not just black and white as a fan might think it should be. There are many factors that go into how or why an official makes or does not make a certain call. I'll give you an example:

1. The over the back call on a rebound. Team A has the ball and shoots it. The ball hits the rim and both players from team A and team B go up for the rebound. Player A has inside position, yet player B jumps up and appears to go over the back and makes contact with Player A.  However, player A still is able to secure the rebound and possession of the ball. In that instance player B's contact on player A did not cause player A to loose control of the ball, therefore it's not necessary for the official to call a foul on Player B. However the team A coach and spectators see Player B go over the back and wants a foul called.

In the same scenario, only this time the contact by Player B causes player A to loose control of the ball, a "loose ball foul" should be called on Player B. We as officials sometimes wait to see the outcome of a play before deciding to blow our whistle. This is referred to sometimes as "Possession Consequence." This is a very important concept in basketball officiating.

Understand that players and coaches don't go into a game with the though process of "I wonder how these officials are going to call the game".  After almost 20 years of officiating, the difference in how the hundreds of officials I've worked with call the games isn't that drastic at all.   We are all trained at similar officiating schools but we do develop our own styles and ideologies.

Officiating basketball is a constant learning experience. After 20 years, I'm still learning new things all the time. Even the best officials in the NBA attend training camps every year to constantly learn and get better.


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Bret,
Thanks for your quick response and also for your years of officiating.
I understand all that you said in this second response, and I think that it's in cases like these where officials earn their stripes, that they try to be fair and balanced, and that difficult two-way calls even out over time.
But your first response alluded to what my concern is, which is officials calling differently one time from another, or from one official to another (tight or loose, or whatever).
As I said, I believe that if forced, there certainly can be more consistency across the board.  I cannot believe, for instance, that baseball umpires, who get an incredibly high percentage of close calls validated by instant replay, cannot be taught exactly where the strike zone is.
I can tell you that as a fan, this goes to the heart of perceived integrity in sports. When we know that officials routinely call games differently,  we cannot help but regard it as intrinsically unfair, and that it can (and maybe does) lead to manipulation.
I am not questioning the integrity of officials.  
I'm asking why these discretionary differences are allowed to persist, especially given the image problems they create.
Thanks,
Paul

Answer
Paul,

I think you have some very valid points. In a perfect world, everything should be uniform. Unfortunately officiating is an imperfect science and like you said, sometimes takes years to earn your stripes through education and experience on the court. I do feel that most basketball games are called pretty consistently. One thing you have to understand is that the NBA is called very differently than any other level. You cannot compare calls made in the NBA to calls made in college. Believe it or not, they are just different animals all together.

With regard to Major League Baseball, the league really tried to enforce the higher strike zone per the description in the rule book. Some newer umpires adhered to the leagues request, while veteran umpires simply aren't going to change their ways.  the varying strike zones actually drive me nuts as a spectator. I've seen pitches above the letters that are called strikes with certain umpires. As a former baseball player myself, the inconsistent strike zones between different umpires proved to be a thorn in my side at times.

All in all, I agree with a lot of what your saying, but I really think it's impossible to get every official perfectly on the same page with every call. The imperfection of officiating sports is what makes it so interesting.  Surprisingly however, I'm a big proponent of the instant replay. In my opinion, given the current technology,  we as officials at the end of the day just want to get the calls right no matter how we come to that conclusion.  The only part of it I don't like in basketball is I feel it interrupts the flow of play.

Thanks again for your questions and your insight, they were very constructive and intuitive.