First College Game

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Actually, the L will make the majority of calls. The SEC did a study in pre-rotation era (late 1970's) that showed that on average the L will make 60% of the calls, the C will make 30% of the calls, and the T will make 10% of the calls. I would bet dollars to donuts that if one were to do a study today, that those percentages will still be valid.

The result of the study does not mean that one should not stop officiating when in the T, but that most of the action is in the L's PCA because what is in the the L's PCA? The Basket.

MTD, Sr.

I've seen more recent studies both from the college level and the NBA. Both have the Lead making around 65% of the calls. With the new emphasis on handchecking, I could understand if the Trail's percentage is up for the past few years. Overall, I can tell you that your understanding is correct and the reason that the NCAAM went back to opposite table switching on fouls. The C was getting left out of the game for long periods of time while the other two officials made most of the calls. I don't know where deecee got his info, but it's not accurate.
I believe that Rich explained the 3-person philosophy very well. The Lead has primary coverage near the basket and most secondary defenders on drives. That is going to result in the most foul calls. The C has off-ball and rebounding, which are both areas to clean up rough play and get what is necessary. That requires focus and diligence to officiate generally away from the center of action. Likely fewer calls will be made here though. The T has most ball handlers on the perimeter and post traveling.
I think that the mindset to "be aggressive" when officiating is a mistake. Officials should always be patient and let the action occur. Our job is to position ourselves (and our crew) such that we get good looks at plays, but don't anticipate illegal activity. I was taught by one of the current NCAAM tourney guys to think that a clean block is coming or a good screen is about to occur instead of looking for a foul or a crash. You still anticipate the action, you just shift your mindset from thinking that something illegal is about to happen to thinking that a defender or offensive player is going to make a positive play. When that doesn't occur, the illegal action stands out much clearer to you. Also thinking in this manner prevents you from penalizing what is borderline or not there. This is the biggest point. If you are thinking a foul situation is about to happen, then you are much more likely to blow the whistle on debatable contact. Whereas if you anticipate the player making a good play, then what you call will be the more obvious illegal contact and you will get a reputation for only calling solid fouls. Coaches and players end up not questioning your decisions as much. How you are perceived has a huge impact on rising up the ladder.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've seen more recent studies both from the college level and the NBA. Both have the Lead making around 65% of the calls. With the new emphasis on handchecking, I could understand if the Trail's percentage is up for the past few years. Overall, I can tell you that your understanding is correct and the reason that the NCAAM went back to opposite table switching on fouls. The C was getting left out of the game for long periods of time while the other two officials made most of the calls. I don't know where deecee got his info, but it's not accurate.
I believe that Rich explained the 3-person philosophy very well. The Lead has primary coverage near the basket and most secondary defenders on drives. That is going to result in the most foul calls. The C has off-ball and rebounding, which are both areas to clean up rough play and get what is necessary. That requires focus and diligence to officiate generally away from the center of action. Likely fewer calls will be made here though. The T has most ball handlers on the perimeter and post traveling.
I think that the mindset to "be aggressive" when officiating is a mistake. Officials should always be patient and let the action occur. Our job is to position ourselves (and our crew) such that we get good looks at plays, but don't anticipate illegal activity. I was taught by one of the current NCAAM tourney guys to think that a clean block is coming or a good screen is about to occur instead of looking for a foul or a crash. You still anticipate the action, you just shift your mindset from thinking that something illegal is about to happen to thinking that a defender or offensive player is going to make a positive play. When that doesn't occur, the illegal action stands out much clearer to you. Also thinking in this manner prevents you from penalizing what is borderline or not there. This is the biggest point. If you are thinking a foul situation is about to happen, then you are much more likely to blow the whistle on debatable contact. Whereas if you anticipate the player making a good play, then what you call will be the more obvious illegal contact and you will get a reputation for only calling solid fouls. Coaches and players end up not questioning your decisions as much. How you are perceived has a huge impact on rising up the ladder.

NevadaRef:

You know that people are going to question your sanity agreeing with me. LOL!

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Clean out your PM inbox.

[MechanicGuy]

I think we should invent a +1 or Thanks system on this board, in tribute to this small thread. So much goodness in just a few posts.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I was taught by one of the current NCAAM tourney guys to think that a clean block is coming or a good screen is about to occur instead of looking for a foul or a crash. You still anticipate the action, you just shift your mindset from thinking that something illegal is about to happen to thinking that a defender or offensive player is going to make a positive play. When that doesn't occur, the illegal action stands out much clearer to you. Also thinking in this manner prevents you from penalizing what is borderline or not there. This is the biggest point. If you are thinking a foul situation is about to happen, then you are much more likely to blow the whistle on debatable contact. Whereas if you anticipate the player making a good play, then what you call will be the more obvious illegal contact and you will get a reputation for only calling solid fouls. Coaches and players end up not questioning your decisions as much. How you are perceived has a huge impact on rising up the ladder.

I really, really like this. As I've moved up I think I've started to put this into practice through repetition and seeing more plays, but the way you articulated this is an excellent framework from which to pre-game and execute. Very nicely stated.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I really, really like this. As I've moved up I think I've started to put this into practice through repetition and seeing more plays, but the way you articulated this is an excellent framework from which to pre-game and execute. Very nicely stated.

I agree. I expect it to be clean. When it's not, it gives me a half-second to evaluate the entire thing before I put a whistle on it.

And it means that if it's a 50/50 call, it's not a foul for me, which I think is the correct way to call a game.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I really, really like this. As I've moved up I think I've started to put this into practice through repetition and seeing more plays, but the way you articulated this is an excellent framework from which to pre-game and execute. Very nicely stated.

I heard a shorter version of the same thing this summer: Assume the defense is legal until he/she isn't.

[APG]

Congrats on your first college game...I was in your shoes earlier in the season. I know the feeling of excitement and anxiety that you'll probably feel. Relax. Someone saw that you have the ability to work the level you're working at.

I just tried to be cognizant of the rules and mechanics difference. Pregame helped me on this. When it came to being on the court...it was referee primary....and get the obvious.

Administrative things like media timeouts...know how to handle...but if you don't know...let your partners handle. Main point is, it's still basketball...go out and referee. You'll get a couple of games under your belt, and you'll feel more at home.

[RedAndWhiteRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've seen more recent studies both from the college level and the NBA. Both have the Lead making around 65% of the calls. With the new emphasis on handchecking, I could understand if the Trail's percentage is up for the past few years. Overall, I can tell you that your understanding is correct and the reason that the NCAAM went back to opposite table switching on fouls. The C was getting left out of the game for long periods of time while the other two officials made most of the calls. I don't know where deecee got his info, but it's not accurate.
I believe that Rich explained the 3-person philosophy very well. The Lead has primary coverage near the basket and most secondary defenders on drives. That is going to result in the most foul calls. The C has off-ball and rebounding, which are both areas to clean up rough play and get what is necessary. That requires focus and diligence to officiate generally away from the center of action. Likely fewer calls will be made here though. The T has most ball handlers on the perimeter and post traveling.
I think that the mindset to "be aggressive" when officiating is a mistake. Officials should always be patient and let the action occur. Our job is to position ourselves (and our crew) such that we get good looks at plays, but don't anticipate illegal activity. I was taught by one of the current NCAAM tourney guys to think that a clean block is coming or a good screen is about to occur instead of looking for a foul or a crash. You still anticipate the action, you just shift your mindset from thinking that something illegal is about to happen to thinking that a defender or offensive player is going to make a positive play. When that doesn't occur, the illegal action stands out much clearer to you. Also thinking in this manner prevents you from penalizing what is borderline or not there. This is the biggest point. If you are thinking a foul situation is about to happen, then you are much more likely to blow the whistle on debatable contact. Whereas if you anticipate the player making a good play, then what you call will be the more obvious illegal contact and you will get a reputation for only calling solid fouls. Coaches and players end up not questioning your decisions as much. How you are perceived has a huge impact on rising up the ladder.

Your last paragraph blew my damn mind. Taking that to heart.