Disagreement with Crew Partner

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Adam

I agree with the concept of going with partner's call, but that involves a level of trust in your partners. I would have done as the OP did in this case, because the partner wanted to change it to a completely incorrect call just to reduce drama. I'm willing to change OOB calls, or call a travel if my partner sees one before my PC call, or a number of other things.

I can't make myself do this one, though.

I'm not sure you're making yourself do anything. The partner, called a foul that happened before the travel. Even assuming that the call was horrifically incorrect, what basis does one official have to reject that call?

(Granted that the partner did not make the correct explanation on why his call should take precedence.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I'm not sure you're making yourself do anything. The partner, called a foul that happened before the travel. Even assuming that the call was horrifically incorrect, what basis does one official have to reject that call?

(Granted that the partner did not make the correct explanation on why his call should take precedence.)

The basis that the contact happened in OP's area, and the logic for making the call from partner was completely faulty.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

This is a prime example of why I HATE when people pre-game "if there's a body on the floor we MUST have a whistle." No, we don't. Rule 4-27-2 clearly states otherwise.

Exactly!!!!

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

It's actually one of my pregame points... "if a player goes to the floor, we need to know WHY. That doesn't mean we have to have a whistle, but we need to know why she ended up there"

That way if the coach questions it, we can confidently say "she tripped over her own feet" or whatever the case may be. In this case it would be "she ran into a defender who was in a legal position, and the defender did nothing wrong"

I do the same thing.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

He called it for a reason other than actually observing that the defender didn't have LGP.

We don't know that without hearing from the other official....we only have one side of the story.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The basis that the contact happened in OP's area, and the logic for making the call from partner was completely faulty.

That would still be wrong. As bad as a partner's call might be and regardless of PCA's you still don't have the authority to overrule it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

We don't know that without hearing from the other official....we only have one side of the story.

I trust the OP's post, as there's no reason not to.

[BryanV21]

I agree with going with the incorrect blocking call. Sometimes our partner(s) make bad calls, but we can't overrule them (well... for the most part). The conversation should have gone like this...

Partner: I have a blocking foul.

You: Before my travel?

Partner: Yep.

You: Okay.

Then, when you get a chance, you can let your partner know why it was a bad call and why.

[Rich]

Except that the OP called a travel and THEN the partner ran in to "overrule" him.

That changes things, at least it does for me.

That partner's block doesn't overrule my "she had LGP".

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Rich

Except that the OP called a travel and THEN the partner ran in to "overrule" him.

That changes things, at least it does for me.

That partner's block doesn't overrule my "she had LGP".

I didn't read the OP well enough and went by later comments before posting. I see now that no block call was whistled. In that case, the travel was the only actual call, so that's what I'd go with.

[wheels]

Why isn't it a PC foul? The defender had LGP and the offensive player ran into her. It's not the defenders fault she didn't go down. The defender took the contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by wheels

Why isn't it a PC foul? The defender had LGP and the offensive player ran into her. It's not the defenders fault she didn't go down. The defender took the contact.

How was the defender disadvantaged?

[rlarry]

The contact knocked her on her hinny, that was the travel call

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

"A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements."

Hinder:
1. to cause delay, interruption, or difficulty in; hamper; impede:
"The storm hindered our progress."
2. to prevent from doing, acting, or happening; stop:

I don't see how the defender was hindered, so therefore I don't have a PC foul here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by wheels

Why isn't it a PC foul? The defender had LGP and the offensive player ran into her. It's not the defenders fault she didn't go down. The defender took the contact.

Was the defender displaced? Was the defender put at any disadvantage by the contact? How is the ball handler fouling a defender when the defender is bigger and does not move?

Again, this is why 4-27 is in the rule book.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I'm not sure you're making yourself do anything. The partner, called a foul that happened before the travel. Even assuming that the call was horrifically incorrect, what basis does one official have to reject that call?

(Granted that the partner did not make the correct explanation on why his call should take precedence.)

I'm a pretty dominant personality on the court, have been on issues where I was both right and wrong since the first day. If partner calls the block and reports it, I probably put the ball in play and refer the coach to him when he asks what the girl did wrong. I'll tell him how stupid a call it was when we're in private.

If he comes in and talks to me, though, I highly doubt I'm backing down in the OP scenario. By talking to me, he's opening the door for me to override his personality. 17 years means nothing to me (I know too many officials in their 17th first season).

I know we don't overrule, I'm just explaining how it's likely to go down on a real court.