Foul on shot; goal tend

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by refstar

Hey all - had an interesting call the other day in Men's league game.

A1 gets shot away then is fouled by B2. As A1's shot it on it's downward trajectory B5 then blocks it.

I called points good for the goal tend and 1 for the foul. My refs coach did not agree and said that should have only been the 2 SF.

What do you guys think?

Rule interpretation is correct but don't know if the mechanics were right. Were you lead or trail?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Mregor

Rule interpretation is correct but don't know if the mechanics were right. Were you lead or trail?

What does it matter? The point is to get it right.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

What does it matter? The point is to get it right.

It does matter. "Get it right", is, most certainly, the first priority. Knowledge of the rules, and how to apply those rules properly, is the highest priority for any basketball official.

Mechanics, and signals, however, must not be shuffled aside. Proper mechanics insure that officials will be in the proper position to make the best call, and proper signals insure that these calls will be properly communicated to partners, the table crew, the coaches, the players, and the fans.

Rules knowledge, and how to properly interpret rules, is certainly important, but don't dismiss the importance of proper mechanics, and signals.

Proper mechanics, and signals, do matter.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It does matter. "Get it right", is, most certainly, the first priority. Knowledge of the rules, and how to apply those rules properly, is the highest priority for any basketball official.

Mechanics, and signals, however, must not be shuffled aside. Proper mechanics insure that officials will be in the proper position to make the best call, and proper signals insure that these calls will be properly communicated to partners, the table crew, the coaches, the players, and the fans.

Rules knowledge, and how to properly interpret rules, is certainly important, but don't dismiss the importance of proper mechanics, and signals.

Proper mechanics, and signals, do matter.

This sounds like marketing fluff. I don't care how "nice" your mechanics are if you can't officiate. Whether or not this stuff matters is up to my assignor. I can usually figure out what my partner is calling and doing even if he doesn't follow the mechanics by the book. Get the call right is the most important part of officiating.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

This sounds like marketing fluff. I don't care how "nice" your mechanics are if you can't officiate. Whether or not this stuff matters is up to my assignor. I can usually figure out what my partner is calling and doing even if he doesn't follow the mechanics by the book. Get the call right is the most important part of officiating.

Mechanics have to do with floor coverage, positioning, rotations, and switching.

So I'm trying to figure out how that doesn't affect the competency of an official.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

This sounds like marketing fluff. I don't care how "nice" your mechanics are if you can't officiate. Whether or not this stuff matters is up to my assignor. I can usually figure out what my partner is calling and doing even if he doesn't follow the mechanics by the book. Get the call right is the most important part of officiating.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Mechanics have to do with floor coverage, positioning, rotations, and switching.

So I'm trying to figure out how that doesn't affect the competency of an official.

I have to side with BNR on this. While deecee is "getting the call right" in an area of coverage in which he shouldn't be looking, I have to wonder what he is missing and getting wrong in the area that he should be watching!

The other problem with the "get it right" thinking is what happens when the primary official clearly sees a play and decides that it is legal, thus electing to not blow his whistle, but a secondary official comes in with a whistle? Answer: The whistled decision always overrides the non-whistled decision. Is that "right"? Not in my opinion and this is backed by NBA and NCAA studies which claim that 70% of whistles outside of one's PCA are incorrect.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I have to side with BNR on this. While deecee is "getting the call right" in an area of coverage in which he shouldn't be looking, I have to wonder what he is missing and getting wrong in the area that he should be watching!

The other problem with the "get it right" thinking is what happens when the primary official clearly sees a play and decides that it is legal, thus electing to not blow his whistle, but a secondary official comes in with a whistle? Answer: The whistled decision always overrides the non-whistled decision. Is that "right"? Not in my opinion and this is backed by NBA and NCAA studies which claim that 70% of whistles outside of one's PCA are incorrect.

Completely agree. My personal philosophy on calling outside my primary is did I see something that *should* be called AND does my partner have a good look (i.e. if I see my partner is looking straight through the matchup then he can live and die with not having a whistle). In cases of goaltending if I were the lead, I may only have a look if there is no real action in front of me. Even then by the time I have a look the contact with the ball would be obvious goaltending and not borderline.

I'd say per 10 games I may have only a small handful of calls outside my primary. The vast majority of times it's with an inexperienced official who gets the deer in headlights situation. Other than that I try and stick to calling the obvious, because reaching is almost always a bad idea.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

I don't care how "nice" your mechanics are if you can't officiate ... Get the call right is the most important part of officiating.

Agree 100%, but wouldn't it be nice to have a partner who can officiate; and who also has good mechanics, and signals; and who also always buys the adult beverages after the game.

Those officials do exist. We have lot of officials like that here in my little corner of Connecticut.

[reffish]

Originally Posted by deecee

This sounds like marketing fluff. I don't care how "nice" your mechanics are if you can't officiate. Whether or not this stuff matters is up to my assignor. I can usually figure out what my partner is calling and doing even if he doesn't follow the mechanics by the book. Get the call right is the most important part of officiating.

And being in the right position (mechanics) to get the call right is important. Before you can get the call right, you need to be in position to make the call. Maybe you are thinking mechanics as how your fist looks when you blow your whistle, how crisp you hands are when you report fouls, how sharp your counts are; but mechanics also include proper floor positioning, officiating your PCA, understanding when to call out of your primary and when not to, and other marketing fluff as such. So, yeah, trail or lead on this call does matter, because it could "lead" to maybe the call was not right.

[refstar]

Originally Posted by Mregor

Rule interpretation is correct but don't know if the mechanics were right. Were you lead or trail?

Thanks - not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that my mechanics were wrong from my scenario

I was trail and it happened in my AOR close to the 3pt line.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by refstar

Thanks - not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that my mechanics were wrong from my scenario

I was trail and it happened in my AOR close to the 3pt line.

I never said you were wrong. We just didn't have enough info to make comment on if mechanics were correct. Now we do. Good job.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by refstar

Thanks - not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that my mechanics were wrong from my scenario

I was trail and it happened in my AOR close to the 3pt line.

Welcome to the forums. Where things are over analyzed and scenarios are subject to countless what ifs and random situations.