Disagreement with Crew Partner

[Camron Rust]

Ignoring for a moment his stated reason and whether he was actually correct in his judgement...

His call would normally have been the right call. It happened first. If he felt the player didn't have LGP, the player didn't have LGP. Perhaps he saw something you didn't. The fact that it was in your primary is irrelevant at this point (even if he shouldn't have been there). You can't overrule his call. He can't overrule yours either. However, your travel occurred after what he judged to be a foul.....thus the ball was dead by the time your travel occurred so it didn't happen.

Again, I'm not saying his call was right or advisable, but it was his call and it came first.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Ignoring for a moment his stated reason and whether he was actually correct in his judgement...

His call would normally have been the right call. It happened first. If he felt the player didn't have LGP, the player didn't have LGP. Perhaps he saw something you didn't. The fact that it was in your primary is irrelevant at this point (even if he shouldn't have been there). You can't overrule his call. He can't overrule yours either. However, your travel occurred after what he judged to be a foul.....thus the ball was dead by the time your travel occurred so it didn't happen.

Again, I'm not saying his call was right or advisable, but it was his call and it came first.

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

[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.

[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.

[Camron Rust]

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".

That isn't how I read the OP. I read it to be that the other official came in with a block just after the whistle for the travel. Unfortunately "she had LGP" isn't a call to be overruled.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by 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)

I agree with this. Based on the play, the "foul" definitely came before the travel. Unless there is some local policy, Section 6 applies: "No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties."

If your partner makes that call, you have to go with it as you have to go with it and assume that he saw something you didn't.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I agree with this. Based on the play, the "foul" definitely came before the travel. Unless there is some local policy, Section 6 applies: "No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties."

If your partner makes that call, you have to go with it as you have to go with it and assume that he saw something you didn't.

Um ... except it's in YOUR area, and you determined NO foul ... going with his call, outside his primary would be him setting aside the decision made by you.

[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.

I'm glad the OP stuck with his call in this situation.

As for takeaways on disagreeing with partners, it happens. Do what you think is best for the game and move on. Some people can't. And that's their problem IMO. Not always something you can do about people who choose to be difficult other than refuse to let them bring you down with them.

[Rich]

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.

I'm glad the OP stuck with his call in this situation.

As for takeaways on disagreeing with partners, it happens. Do what you think is best for the game and move on. Some people can't. And that's their problem IMO. Not always something you can do about people who choose to be difficult other than refuse to let them bring you down with them.

I had a partner a few years ago who simply refused to acknowledge any inbound spot I gave him. It culminated with me hitting my whistle on a call (once I had enough) and letting everyone in the place know where I wanted the throw-in.

I shouldn't have done that. It was a locker room conversation. I was wrong to do something that out in the open. I learned from it.

[jTheUmp]

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.

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"

[rockyroad]

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.

.

Agreed. Hate that statement...better to say "if there's a body on the floor, we must know how they got there"