At what point should you as a reporter point out the wrong call was made?

If you sent that to me, it would be changed to "appeared to not go through the hoop" and you would be cursed out.

 

Or "would appear to be cursed out." Your definition of "cursed out" might have a lower threshold than his or someone observing the encounter.

 

It didn't "appear" to not go in. It wasn't an illusion. It didn't go in.

 

"allegedly went in."

 

typo on my part. "appeared to go in"

 

I'm in the camp that the best way to handle it is to describe the play, then ask as many of the parties involved as you can about it.

A few years ago I was covering a high school baseball playoff game. Team A was ahead 3-2 in the bottom of the eighth inning. One out and no one on, 2-2 count, and a player from Team B checks his swing on a pitch in the dirt. It sure as hell looked to me and everyone in the ballpark that he swung -- including the field ump, who made some sort of fist pump motion a second or two afterward -- but the plate ump called it a ball and then flat-out refused to grant the catcher an appeal. Team A's coach goes berserk and is ejected for arguing.

The batter ends up getting a base hit, scores the tying run, and his team wins on a walk-off infield hit.
I objectively described the scene, talked to the ejected coach and the batter. Got some great quotes from the coach that carried the story, and another good one from the player who said he thought he'd swung but that the ump basically said under his breath that he hadn't.
I also named the umpires in the story, although I wasn't able to catch them before they left the field. That was the only part I'd do differently, is make a better effort to run them down.
Other than that, I think it was the right way to handle that type of thing. You describe what you see, with as much detail as you can, and then you ask the right questions about it. Don't speculate, and be damn sure of what you saw. Corroborate it with the people you're interviewing if need be.

 

At what point do you realize that nobody agrees with you?

 

Right under the comment that agrees with me.

 

Here's an example of what Batman is talking about I saw on the wires tonight. Don't rely on your judgement, talk to the principals. If possible, check the replays. It's tempting to want to be judge and jury, but that's not your job:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/26/4020512/cibulkova-beats-radwanska-in-sony.html

 

He says the call was "erroneous" in the lead. Not "appeared erroneous." It was fucking erroneous.

You're not being judge and jury if you report what you saw. It's not a judgement. It's an observation. Observe and report. That is what reporters do at the most basic level.

Of course you talk to the people involved as well. I don't think anyone disputes that.

 

I agree with him/her, to a certain extent.

Report it definitively, but have a video, photo, screengrab, etc., in your hip pocket as proof. And, be prepared for readers to question you.

As discussed here, "just trust me" often doesn't work in today's journalism.

 

He said it was erroneous because both parties involved admitted what happened, so there was clearly an error. Both players were quoted. He had the ability to watch televised replays. When you have all that, you're damn right you can say it was an erroneous call. So long as you have the erring player admit the mistake, then you can write it.

At Veterans Memorial Park on a Saturday afternoon with John Smith battling Dave Jones in a Class AA conference match, good luck getting all the same corroboration.