Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
I'm not all that concerned with what others post here, nor am I concerned with how you interpret my posts (I guess I'm channeling Jeff again here big time...). But I wil try 1 more time...
If you know a partner kicked a RULE (not a judgement call) then you fix it. Period. In your BC violation case I cannot for the life of me imagine ever going to the T to question what he saw. Maybe you would...I would not.
|
BG does raise a valid point though about the confusion...I like you cannot ever imagine going to the T to question him in that backcourt situation either. What it seems to come down to in this case is that with the backcourt case, your partner blew the ball dead. At that point you are probably going to have something and if he makes a call you are probably going to just run with it and write it off (to yourself of course) to his poor judgement (or lack of rules knowledge) if you know for a fact that he kicked it. With the GT/BI vs. Tech scenario, both officials had a dead ball, the clock was killed, at that point you can get together and decide what you have. If you know for a fact that your partner is wrong you have an opportunity to correct him b/c regardless of the outcome you both had a dead ball. Picture doing the same with the BC scenario, are you going to run over there and correct him and then if he agrees just go with an IA whistle and give A the ball back? Makes your partner look like he had no clue what he was talking about. In the other example, the two of you get together, figure it out, then when you break the huddle, you all look like you know what you are doing by making the correct call....sorry if this is rambling, but I think the fine point/difference here is that with the BC scenario your parnter put himself out on an island, there isn't really a graceful way to get him off...with the GT/BI vs. Tech scenario, you have two whistles, you get together, figure it out and all come out smelling like roses...