Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Dribble
Sounds like one of those situations where you do have to be forceful and say, "This is what I saw, I'm going to stay with my call and we'll talk about it after the game."
I've always believed that long conferences look terrible and if it wasn't a controversial call, then what's the point?
I think you did the right thing by going with your call. What did your evaluators say when you posed the situation to them afterwards? Did they agree with your call or did they think you should've gone with your partner's?
|
There's no question that I was right. (Is there ever?!?!) Evaluator was unhappy with how long it took, regardless of who was right. He thought I should have capitulated earlier and done it my partner's way, even though he was wrong. He agreed with you that long conferences look terrible.
|
An evaluator told you this? Are you kidding me? What credible evaluator would actually tell an official to purposely do something wrong, not covered by the rules, etc? Juulie, I think that you did fine here. Yea, the conference looked bad because it took long and probably people could see you were disagreeing. But ultimately, you
got the call right and that's what matters.
Along the same lines, I know that for some people in the era of "getting it right," they don't care how long the conference takes just as long as the call is made correctly and executed in like manner. Take the job that Jim Burr did in the Elite 8 Kentucky game with the 3-point shot. He and his crew took 5 minutes, but ultimately got the call right (at least in some people's views..shall we talk about pixels again?
)