DJ,

I don't think anybody is saying speed up and get it wrong but if you have pre-gamed the play then you can get the hell out of a sticky situation faster than 3 or 4 minutes. But, you are correct, get it right no matter the time.

Mulk

Mulk,

I do not think he said to speed it up, just to speed it up. He said that the time it took looks even worse than if they had just come together and did what is right. Having a 5 minute conversation looks really bad. Yes, it looks bad. You already screwed up, now you have to have a debate over what to do next. You do not have 5 minute discussions on any other decisions made during the game, unless you have a fight or some really unusual situation that might not even be covered in the rules. This situation is covered and had only a one option to handle. And yes, if you discussed the possiblities of this happening, you can discuss what you are trying to avoid. We do it all the time in pregames across the country.

What is your issue with a pregame when anyone mentions it? Especially when this comes up about this issue? Do they not have pregames in your area? Do they not discuss the possible situations that might want to be avoided?

Why is this always an issue with you?

Peace

Rut,

We may have said it differently but I meant exactly the same thing that I think that you meant. Get both fouls reported, count basket(if applicable) and go to arrow. If you have pre-gamed this play, it should not take a long time to get it sorted out.

You must not have been reading my posts if you think that I think that pre-games are not important So, I will try this 1 more time.

I don't have a problem with pre-games. I come to these boards all the time for material for my pre-games. But, my point of view is that the pre-game itself will not stop a blarge in every situation. And, we try awfully hard to PREVENT in the pre-game. You might appreciate this, we have resorted to the C or trail that if they are going to go with a call on the collision to be moving toward the play hard so that maybe, just maybe it will be a little harder to come out with an immediate signal if they are moving to the play i.e. run toward it with only a fist. harder to run with the hand behind the head or your hand on your hips.

We do pre-game this play all the time and that works in most of the games in our group, but it still rears its ugly head from time to time. That is one of the reasons that I know that it takes more than a pre-game. So, be prepared to sort it out (quickly) if it occurs in people's (not your) games.

One other thing, I have never said it was acceptable or okay to have a blarge. but, I have seen it happen to very good officials.

No one has ever said that. No one has ever suggested the pre-games prevent everything all the time. Pre-games prevent a lot from happening and yes "blages" are very preventable. Sorry, they are. I cannot think of the last time I have seen one in any games I have watched. Have they happen in games, of course they have. But it is not very common, nor is it acceptable.

If this is happening to you from time to time, that is not a good thing. Of course it takes more than a pregame to prevent. You cannot go into a game the only thing that factors in is a pregame. Your experience level, your competence as an official, you experience with the mechanics that are being used and being patient to not signal when you know or realize that your partner might have a call. Especially now with the option to birddog. If you take a few steps into the foul, you are going to notice whether your partner called a foul or not. If you are not in a hurry, you can tell if your partner called a foul or not. It is never just one thing, but it should not happen and is not acceptable.

Welcome to the real world. Of course it can happen to good officials, but it should not happen at all and is extremely preventable. I should not forget who the shooter is and yes it has happen, but it is not at all acceptable when it has happen to me. And yes, that is why you have a pregame. The pregame is to also find out the philosophies of your partners so that you can go into the game with knowledge of how they want to handle things and how the conflicts with your personal philosophies and what they want to do. And in the end, you get on the same page so you can know how to handle a double whistle. Which is what happens first before you can have a "blarge" in the first place.

Peace

Um. . . huh? :confused:

Um. . . huh? :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

Why is that confusing?

Mulk's claim is that speeding up the conversation should not be an issue. Getting it is. I do not think DJ made his comments about how bad it looked was the issue of getting it right. Talking for 5 minutes when there is only one option according the the casebook looks really bad. It looks like you are trying to just come up with something, rather than doing what the rulebook says. You do not have 5 minute conversations about an out of bounds play. You pregame that in order to make a decision and move on.

Peace

Why is that confusing? [/B][/QUOTE]Is that a serious question? How can that not be confusing? "I don't think he said to speed it up, just to speed it up." Ok, don't speed it up. But, oh by the way, speed it up. Thanks.

I understood both Ron's and DJ's point. I was merely pointing out your typo and trying (unsuccessfully) to be humorous. I think you meant to type "I do not think he said to speed it up, just to get it right." Right?

It was not a typo.
 

Why is that confusing? [/B][/QUOTE]Is that a serious question? How can that not be confusing? "I don't think he said to speed it up, just to speed it up." Ok, don't speed it up. But, oh by the way, speed it up. Thanks.

I understood both Ron's and DJ's point. I was merely pointing out your typo and trying (unsuccessfully) to be humorous. I think you meant to type "I do not think he said to speed it up, just to get it right." Right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Would it be better if I said, DJ did not say to "speed it up," for the sake of speeding it up?

If I recall, DJ made no statement about getting anything right. He was just saying that 5 minutes was a bit long to discuss the situation. Mulk was the only one that made a comment about getting it right. The reason (at least as far as I can see) was to get it right and the time they discussed the sitution was not relevent. But as far as I am concerned, it is relevent how long they talk about the situation. This is why I was backing DJ on what he said. It was very clear to me that the time that was decribed was a bit much. I happen to agree with that. And getting it right is not the end all be all of every situation. It does not take 5 minutes or should not take that long to discuss what to do if you have this happen.

Thank you Chuck once again. ;)

Peace

Would've been better if you'd just admitted it was a typo!
 

Absolutely. Then there would not have been any contradiction within the sentence. Personally, I think that's a good thing. :)

Then, you don't recall (not that there's anything wrong with that). DJ wrote:

You're very welcome! Always glad to help out when it comes to expressing oneself clearly; or remembering clearly. ;)

Did you make them shoot free throws because they were in the bonus? Am I reading this right? Why shoot free throws after a PC?

No, we didn't shoot. My partners just wanted to verify that it was a PC since it was the 8th foul and if it WASN'T a PC we would've been shooting.

Mulk's claim is that speeding up the conversation should not be an issue. Getting it is.

Rut,

I may have misunderstood DJ's post, but you CERTAINLY misunderstood mine. It should NOT take very long to sort out this situation.

Mulk

You are the boss.
 

OK, whatever you say. :rolleyes:

Peace