Sun Jan 08, 2006, 12:00pm
|
|
Huck Finn
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,347
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SMEngmann
Quote:
Originally posted by tomegun
SME,
Please don't think you can slip that one past us! Charlie Range did something that changed the game of basketball (college at least) but that is not the same thing as watching the ball. He used the monitor before it was accepted. I have been to his camp and I know for sure he would not advocate 3 sets of eyes on the ball and doing what many believe is good officiating on this board. Don't connect the two; they aren't the same.
Just because you include a sentence saying you aren't doing it doesn't mean you aren't advocating ball-watching. You are! A long, long time ago I had a similar situation happen during a game (a military tournament). I saw a play from the start and made my call. My "partner" came to me and said he had a foul on the other player, even though he didn't have a whistle. I looked at him, in amazement, and told him to go report it. This guy had the nerve to go to the table and report a foul that he never had!
When I'm not being cynical, I have had many situations that haven't turned out right. That is why I know the best thing to do is have a comfortable crew and let other officials call their game. If I was the coach of the other team on these plays we have been talking about lately, I would throw a fit, and rightfully so. You cannot throw good mechanics out the window. Doing so gives younger officials a license to do this the whole game. It isn't good for us to say this all the time on the board. There are exceptions; saying getting it right is the most important thing is not the right thing to say every time someone is ball watching!
|
As RefTN said there are occasions where having a double whistle, or even a triple whistle on rare occasions is a good thing. Our primary goals on the floor are to manage the game and to call the obvious, and those goals often go hand in hand. In my opinion, the design of the 3 person system is to put officials in the right places to call obvious fouls. Coverage areas converge, particularly if there are no competitive matchups, and often the slot or the trail has a better look at a certain play than the lead. When I say I don't advocate ball-watching, I agree with Rut that officials should referee their first competitive matchup and stay within the system, but there are also occasions when other officials simply have a better look.
In this particular situation, as described, we have an OBVIOUS foul at a critical time in the game that the L clearly kicked/talked himself out of. The other officials both had a clear foul and came in late and took it. As described, we're talking about a train wreck type play, and those are game changing plays if nothing is called. Are there times when this can't get called? Sure, if both other officials are occupied in their areas with competitive matchups, but in this case, both clearly saw an obvious foul, and were certain enough of the foul to come in and make the call. I don't see how any official, in good conscious, at the varsity right area or not, can see an obvious foul, with no doubt, at a critical point in the game and swallow the whistle because, "That was his call." Get the play right.
|
I don't really know why you quoted me, but this play and the result is BS. Since you quoted me, I'm assuming your post was to explain the art of 3-person to me. Next time give me all your information before I leave on a Friday to do a varsity boys and D2 men's game. I'm sure I could have used this before! 
All this "blah, blah, blah" is basically "this is why I watch the ball." In YOUR conscious, you live with watching the ball. I have never, EVER had an evaluator tell me "why didn't you call that call in your partner's area?" They will ask why you are calling out of your area in a heartbeat. The vast majority of the time, I'm looking in MY primary because I don't ref in this wonderful land of OZ that doesn't have anything off-ball for me to look at.
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden
|