Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drinkeii
But in the NBA, an official who actually calls by the rules (rather than by the philosophy of making a good game for the fans) would never keep his job for long. That is where I am going - As referees, our job is to keep trying to get better, and improve our calling of the game. This means studying the rules and cases, brushing up on mechanics, etc.
|
Based on this comment, I really think you have no idea what goes on with the NBA or what the rules are. The rules in the NBA are not as ridged or as black and white. The NBA goes over all aspects of the rules in ways you would never understand. The NBA officials are not forced to just read a rulebook and never talk to the creators of the rules on a regular basis. The NBA officials have an internet meeting every single day, where plays are reviewed and they know what were good calls and bad calls in every single game they officiate. The NCAA or the NF (or state associations) have no such communication between the rules makers and the officials on a monthly basis let alone a daily basis to go over good plays and bad plays from the officials.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drinkeii
The problem I have with this idea is that some people are so gung-ho for coverage areas that they don't want you calling anything in their area period. Are we, or are we not, out there to get the calls right? Some people i have worked with say "Well, if I miss it, too bad... i missed it, but you still shouldn't have called it". And we do the out of bounds thing all the time - i agree that the closest official would be more likely to judge the toe on the line, but we help each other all the time on tips or deflections which change what would be the direction the ball is going when it hits out of bounds.
|
You have a right to believe what you want to, but calling stuff all over the court does not make it right. You mentioned that you work other sports other than basketball. I can tell you I would be totally wrong if I went around in those sports and starting calling things I "thought" I saw and was not in position to call. I am a Back Judge on my football crew and I know I do not see things with the line of scrimmage or line play issues. It would be just as wrong for a base umpire to call balls and strikes from a position where you cannot see the plate clearly. Just because you "think" you saw something, does not mean you actually did see what your partner saw. Get it right does not mean that you "got it right" if you partner saw the entire play and you are not watching your area.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drinkeii
No coverage areas would be bad. I believe that 100% (or even close to it) adherance to coverage areas is just as bad. I want my partner to call things I might miss, if they're in my area, and I want to have the same ability with other partners. Top priority should be "get the call right" - not "protect your valuable fishing area".
|
No it is not. If I am watching my area, especially when the ball is not around me, I personally do not want to watch the ball because the problems are going to start off-ball. It is easy to watch the ball and if we think there is a travel you can call it. What is hard to do is to stay off-ball and watch things that will creep up into the game much later. If you are not watching your coverage area and roaming, you might just miss the very thing that brings your game into the toilet. It is also one thing to call something that is in a trouble area where two primary coverage areas overlap. It is another thing all together to call something that your partner was watching the entire time. Also at least in 3 man, if you want to get plays right, move and you will be in better position when things change.
Peace