[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Goose
I attended a HS 3-man camp this summer, mainly to get more familiar with working in the 3 man system. The camp will remain nameless as will it's location, but let's just say that an SEC element was present. At least I saw the SEC tapes of the plays of the week which were wonderful.

Although the camp was good, I felt out of place since I had more experience (years) than all but one of the clinicians and one camper! Of course we had the 5 year ref doing D-1, and another with about 7 years experience. Nothing personal, but how much experience can a 7 year official really have?

I understand why you feel that way, but this is really not fair for you to question someone's experience because it is not as long as you have worked. Some officials just get it. Some officials know what they are supposed to do and do it at an early age. Tiger Woods is probably the best golfer to ever play the game. Tiger is much younger than most golfers on the tour. How long he has been playing does not diminish his skill level. Maybe these officials played the game at college or coached for a long time? I do not know, but everyone that is good cannot work D1 ball.

Originally posted by Goose
And how could I leave out the A-hole up and coming ref who thinks he is god's gift to officiating? I had the pleasure of working with this rump-swab 3 times, and at the end of game 3 nearly had to restrain my other partner from ringing his neck! This guy would rotate when the ball was in the air, and of course, that meant the other 2 guys were now out of position. The clinicians had a field day with this issue, that is until I pulled the clinician aside and asked him did he not see that this guy was rotating when the ball was in the air and that is why we had 2 Leads? His response was, "yea, I saw what he was doing." So, if you saw what he was doing, basically making his two partners look like donkey's, why did you ask us why were there 2 Leads 5 times in the first half?

There are always people at camp like this. I would not worry about it.

Originally posted by Goose
My biggest gripe and this continues to this day, is one of consistency. What I was told at this camp was almost 90 degrees out of phase of what I was taught at a Northeastern IAABO camp! To me, this is a huge problem within the officiating community. There are just to many differences and this makes it awfully frustrating. I will illustrate a couple of issues.

Counting: Specifically the backcourt count. I thought it odd when I moved into this area when watching other officials count, they would extend their arms from the armpit out and up. I was always taught, and taught at the IAABO camp the count was from the waist straight out or slightly downward. This makes sense because I really don't want to hit a player in the head while counting. Now at this camp, it is from the armpit, out and up. FED mechaninc manual 'seems' to indicate a similar position, so maybe I was originally taught wrong. I was constantly criticized for my counts being to low, even when they were chest high.

I was always taught to keep my count level with my shoulder. I do not think it really matters, there is personal preference involved in many things we do. Not a big deal where I see things.

Originally posted by Goose
Second mechanics issue: Reporting. Again, I was always taught to use your body as a background when reporting. Not so at this camp. I was constantly reminded of the 'box' which is a window from chest high to the top of your head extended to the side of your body. Again, I was critiqued for not reporting and using hand signals in the box.

I never was taught to signal in front of my body. It is harder to see and if the scorer does not hear you, they might confuse what number you had. What they taught you is the same thing we teach guys at the HS level here.

Originally posted by Goose
Now, in watching the clinicians work, it was the old axiom of "don't do what I do, do as I say", because all of them didn't even follow their own advice when it came to mechanics. I guess the 5th year guy doing D-1 has a 'right' to do his own thing, but it sends an awfully conflicting message to the younger guys. I do not understand the mentality that says you must do all the mechanics by the book, but then once you get to D-1 you can chuck it. Now why would one have to learn it if when one gets to D-1 they can do what they want? This has always bothered me. I have seen tapes of Hank Nichols and have seen him live, and his mechanics were about as perfect as possible. Impressive to say the least, but yet for the most part, they are a mish-mash in D-1 at present.

Life is not fair. I have heard Tom O'Neal talk about this several times. He says guys do one thing when they are going up the latter and change when they get there. The only thing I can really say is officials at that level (and even at the high levels of HS) are judged by the calls they make, not the mechanics they use. That is just the way it is. I am sure it has always been that way.

Originally posted by Goose
I fear that these issues will eventually drive me out of the profession as I am becomming more and more frustrated at the double standards that exist as well as the lack of consistency across the board. For my money, there are just to many theories, to many ways of doing things, one can never know exactly what is the correct thing. I am more than willing to do it by the book, but are we all reading from the same book?

Of course we are not all reading from the same book, because the book does not clarify all these differences and possibilities.

Originally posted by Goose
The other annoyance was the term "game interrupter". Strictly a college term, but I was scolded for calling a hack from the slot on a player who prevented another player from taking a shot in the low post as he turned to me. Everyone saw it, but at the break, my call was classified as a game interrupter. I'm just glad that the coach next to me saw me make the call cause it was his player who got hacked. Anyway, press on.

This is another common term used where I live. I was not there to judge whether your call was a game interrupter or not, but I know that we try to pass on plays that do not affect the play.

Originally posted by Goose
Other issues. Call your area, period, unless the end of the world is near. We had a clear block charge with me in the slot from the opposite side of the court down the lane. Huge crash, I held, Lead froze IMO, and thus no call, but it was without a doubt a charge. In 2-man, I wouldn't have hesitated in making the call, but with 3-man, there are some fuzzy issues with calling your area only. Talked to the camp director at the break and asked him his opinion and what should I have done. Basically, I did the right thing and eat the whistle, although I didn't feel good with that answer since player A got away with manslaughter while the whole gym watched. So, I'm not so sure about this call your area only thing, but I can respect it.

What did your partner think? Maybe your partner had a different point of view. Now I was not there, but I had a call made during a college camp I attended last week and I passed on the call that was clearly in my area. When I asked my partner what happen, she clearly did not know see what I did. It was not a big deal, but I know I would not have called anything if I had a second chance at the same play.

Originally posted by Goose
Same game, earlier, I'm in the slot again, and player A drives and takes off from other side of the court slashing to the basket airborne. Arm gets ticked, and I mean ticked. Shot still got off without a problem. Lead again fails to call (this was a D-1 official). Player A turns to him and says he was hit, and thereupon was awarded with a T. I was then asked later if I saw his arm being hit, whereupon I said I saw it get touched, not hit, and furthermore, it had no effect on his motion or his release. I was chastized for not making this call from the slot. So, in this game I couldn't win for losing. Damned if I did, and damned if I didn't.

That is camp. It is not unusual for one clinician to tell you one thing and another to say something completely different. That is just the way things work. It is up to you to decide if the information they give you works for you.

Originally posted by Goose
All in all, it was a good learning experience for me. It all wasn't bad. I got my 3-man stuff down, but I'm still at odds with the inconsistency that exists at these camps. To much power is being held by assignors, and especially so with college men and women working as clinicians at HS camps.

goose

What is your suggestion for a change? Not sure it is going to change anytime soon, nor should it if you ask me. We cannot get clinicians and camps in my state to all agree on what to do, what makes you think it is going to change when you go to different camps across the country?

Peace