Wed Dec 28, 2005, 03:51pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tomegun
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
The best way to help an inexperienced official is to qualify or completely change the phrase to, "Find the defender and see through the play."
For me that subtle change, puts them closer to what really seeing the play means.
|
I get a kick out of this; I think some things are indicative of a strong official, which is a good thing.
Why isn't the best way to tell a younger official to watch the matchup, which will include offensive player (with the ball), defensive player and any possible screeners? When we (officials in general) talk about these sorts of things, we could be discussing the L off-ball the comment will be made to watch the next competitive ______________________. If you fill in the blank, it sure won't be "find the defender and see through the play." It will be (the next competitive) "matchup." We should know who our defenders are and what they are doing, but we watch the matchup because the offensive player could do something too. In reality it isn't, and shouldn't be, much different if one of the two players happens to have the ball. We do it all the time; if a break occurs, with a one-on-one situation, and A1 travels, how do we see it to call it? Because we are watching the matchup! If and when A1 begins the shooting motion on this play, we go to the defender to see the play through. The same thing could be said of a play where A1 is close to, but behind, the 3-point line and gets fouled in the act; the foul was called because we watch the defense but we determined it was a 3-point attempt because we located the offense OR because we just reffed the matchup. These are plays that happen all the time, so why all this reluctance to call it what it really is (and what describes it more accurately)? This is almost like saying we have to ref the defense and "this that and the other" as opposed to saying we have to ref the matchup, which includes reffing the defense and "this that and the other."
|
Is matchup any clearer in reality?
Any philosophy based on descriptive terms or catch phrases run the risk of being taken literally.
Matchup just has a slightly wider "tunnel vision" than ref the defense, it does not mean when they take it literally and focus on those two players that they don't miss a lot going on around it.
|