was going to the arrow correct

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Dan_ref
[BThat is exactly what we want. No ifs ands or buts - or "who was watching over here while you were watching over there?"'s about it.

Get it right. [/B]

In MTD's previous post the L made a call from the endline that was in MTD's primary and 35 feet away from the L. I don't think he just flashed to that area and made a call right away so while he was "ball watching" who was "primary watching" for him? Also a simple question, why do we do games with 3 officials instead of 2?

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Trust your partners and you will get it that much more right because the percentage of calls will go up considerably when all officials are watching their primary. Again there are correctable errors, rule interps and other things that the crew concept will get done but the mechanically correct way to go into a game is to officiate your primary with reckless abandonment (someone tole me that once. It tickles me.).

This is what MTD put in his post "Remember officiate your primary, trust your partner, and get the plays, such as correctable errors, AP Arrow resets, fights, etc. correct."
Can we argue with this?



[Edited by tomegun on Feb 17th, 2004 at 01:06 PM]

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by tomegun

Trust your partners and you will get it that much more right because the percentage of calls will go up considerably when all officials are watching their primary. Again there are correctable errors, rule interps and other things that the crew concept will get done but the mechanically correct way to go into a game is to officiate your primary with reckless abandonment (someone tole me that once. It tickles me.).

This is what MTD put in his post "Remember officiate your primary, trust your partner, and get the plays, such as correctable errors, AP Arrow resets, fights, etc. correct."
Can we argue with this?



[Edited by tomegun on Feb 17th, 2004 at 01:06 PM]

Why is it when someone says "Get the calls right as a team" there are those that jump up & down screaming "Call your primary"?

Get the calls right means nothing more - or less - than get the calls right. It does not mean to stare at the 5 sq ft of shiney wooden floor in front of you waiting for something to happen.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by tomegun

In MTD's previous post the L made a call from the endline that was in MTD's primary and 35 feet away from the L. I don't think he just flashed to that area and made a call right away so while he was "ball watching" who was "primary watching" for him? Also a simple question, why do we do games with 3 officials instead of 2? [/B]

If it was a good call that had to be made that Mark missed then the L did good. If it was a bad call from 35 feet away then it was a bad call. No other way to spin it. (I didn't read Mark's play, too many words.)

Why 3 instead of 2? So we can see more of the floor as a team and get more calls right as a team.

[Bart Tyson]

Why is it when someone says "Get the calls right as a team" there are those that jump up & down screaming "Call your primary"?

Get the calls right means nothing more - or less - than get the calls right. It does not mean to stare at the 5 sq ft of shiney wooden floor in front of you waiting for something to happen. [/B]

Maybe because some of us believe (by experience and studies) that 70% to 90% of calls out of primary are incorrect. Excluding non BB action and the obvious to the 30th row a "got to get" foul, if we stay in out primary we will officiate a better game. Thats why we say "trust your partner". SSSooo, the question is, do we want to have 70-90% bad calls to get that 10-30% calls correct?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

Maybe because some of us believe (by experience and studies) that 70% to 90% of calls out of primary are incorrect. Excluding non BB action and the obvious to the 30th row a "got to get" foul, if we stay in out primary we will officiate a better game. Thats why we say "trust your partner". SSSooo, the question is, do we want to have 70-90% bad calls to get that 10-30% calls correct? [/B]

Nope, that aint the question Bart. First of all the concept of primary includes the concept of secondary area. Many of us (including you obviously) understand this and we know exactly why it's normally better to not reach. Not a quesion. The question is for the "newer" guys, the guys that are likely to think staying in their primary means NEVER calling ANYTHING - not even the most obvious - outside of their primary. And they'll pat themselves on the back thinking they did good because they stayed in their primary when an obvious call has been missed. And they'll wonder why they seem to be doing the same level games year after year after year....

Bottom line is to get it right as a team. I have never said "Stay out of my primary" during a pregame. If someone said that to me I know we're in for trouble.

And BTW, I like to think that for many of us 90% of OUR out of primary calls ARE correct, because we are selective and know when to make those calls.

[Bart Tyson]

The question is for the "newer" guys, the guys that are likely to think staying in their primary means NEVER calling ANYTHING - not even the most obvious - outside of their primary.[/B]

Somehow I don't see newer officials as a problem of staying in their area. In fact I think when they learn to stay in primary is when they start moving up. They need to learn to stay in prmary before learning what to reach for.

And BTW, I like to think that for many of us 90% of OUR out of primary calls ARE correct, because we are selective and know when to make those calls. [/B]

This might be true for some of us, because we seldom call out of our area. I would guess I might average one call a game out of my primary. I might have two or three double whistles where my whistle is in my secondary. However, You show me an official who regularly makes calls out of their primary and I'll show you an official who doesn't have a clue.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

Somehow I don't see newer officials as a problem of staying in their area. In fact I think when they learn to stay in primary is when they start moving up. They need to learn to stay in prmary before learning what to reach for.
[/b]

And this is my point. They never learn what to reach for because they are too proud of "staying in their primary".

And BTW, I like to think that for many of us 90% of OUR out of primary calls ARE correct, because we are selective and know when to make those calls.

This might be true for some of us, because we seldom call out of our area.
[/b][/quote]
wha??? isn't that what I just said??? :shrug:

I would guess I might average one call a game out of my primary. I might have two or three double whistles where my whistle is in my secondary. However, You show me an official who regularly makes calls out of their primary and I'll show you an official who doesn't have a clue.

And you show me an official who refuses to agree that getting the calls right is our MAIN objective and I'll show you an official who does not have a clue.

Interesting how everytime I toss this one up the answer is "Stay in your primary". Get it right is the answer. It's not stay out of my primary, it's not I aint calling it if it's in yours. Just get it right.

Difficult concept? I don't think so :shrug:

[Bart Tyson]

Dan_Ref........I give up, you win. I don't know how but you cheated. So there!

[Back In The Saddle]

The situation we were discussing is a very specific case where the official closest to the violation, with a legitimate reason to be taking notice of the ball, provided a partner with some additional information that allowed him to get the call right. I find it interesting that some people have such difficulty separating what is an obvious and appropriate time to give your partner some additional information from the general case of a partner from hell gone fishing out of his area all night long.

An intelligent and well informed decicision to break with mechanics to get a call right need not be a threat to our normally rigorous adherance to the "stay in your primary" principle.

We can all tell tales of partners that went fishing in our pond and burned us. We can all recall times where we reached and were wrong. And we can all share examples of when we didn't reach to get something obvious and regretted it. I think it would be wrong to let such examples dissuade us from helping our partners out at appropriate times. Such times might include:

* An OOB call where you saw a tip, especially if it happened in your primary
* 2 v. 3 point shot when trail/center is straighlined and guessing
* A travel in front of the lead when he's busy looking for contact
* And yes, odd though it may seem, the free-throw violation in question

It's a simple matter to pre-game how to handle this as well. There is no need to put your partner on the spot. Simply go to him with a "did you see such-and-such" question, and let him change his call if he desires.

With the exception of the final example, I have had partners help out with each of these items and it has made the game better.

I've got a double header tonight where I'll be watching my primary, as always. And, as always, I'll be pregaming what I've been talking about. If my partner and I can agree to help each other out when appropriate, we'll have an even better game as a crew than we would as two individuals.

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
The situation we were discussing is a very specific case where the official closest to the violation, with a legitimate reason to be taking notice of the ball, provided a partner with some additional information that allowed him to get the call right.

And in getting this call right we ended up giving the ball back to the shooting team because they had the AP. Never mind the players never had a chance to rebound because the ball went directly oob. Oob a split second AFTER the whistle. HHmmm sounds fair.

[Edited by Bart Tyson on Feb 17th, 2004 at 03:23 PM]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Dan_Ref........I give up, you win. I don't know how but you cheated. So there!

Bart:

Don't give up. I think your reasoning is very logical and insightful.

MTD, Sr.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bart:

Don't give up. I think your reasoning is very logical and insightful.

MTD, Sr.

Never give up, I like that kind of thinking. So I'll try again:

Hey Mark, if the L is not able to see when the ball hits the rim how will he know when players (undef NFHS) can enter the lane? You're not suggesting the L should guess, are you?

Well?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Dan_Ref:

I think you are confused as to what officiating your primary means. Yes, we as officials strive to get every call correct. An official, depending on whether he is in the L, C, or T, is given an area of the court to officiate. If every member of an officiating crew were to watch the ball 100% of the time, 80% of the players and their actions would not be watched. That is not good. Officials who make it a habit of making calls out of their primary are ball watchers. How do I know that. I have officiated too long and evaluated too many officials.

Ball watchers very seldom make the correct call when they make call out of their primary because they almost never see the entire play. They never see the entire play because they are out of position to make the call. More importantly, when an official ball watches he/she is abandoning his primary and that can spell disaster.

In my game last Friday night, the R from the C position had four players directly in front of him and he left them to call a travel on the ball handler who was directly in front of the T. The C was at least 45 feet from the ball and actually move toward the division line to be able to see the ball because he could not see through all of the players in his primary. To make matters worse the player with the ball did not travel, he just made a funky looking stop to his dribble. How do I know? I saw the tape of the game today. The V coach could not understand why the C was making the call right in front of the T.

Bart made many good points about officiating in your primary. The basic premise of a two-person officiating crew is that there is one pair of eyes on the ball, and one pair eyes off the ball. When one starts watching the ball when it is not in his/her primary that is an equation for disaster. There is nothing wrong with stretching your coverage in a two-person crew outside your primary, but it should be in the context of off ball officiating. The court is quite large for only two pairs of eyes, and a lot of monkey business can happen off the ball. The basic premise of three-person officiaing is to really split the off ball coverage between two officials.

Since you live in New York, I am going to assume that you belong to an IAABO Board. I would like to suggest that you talk with your Board Interpreter about what Bart and I have been saying in this thread. If you know who Roger MacTavish is, you might want to chat with him also.

Have a good remaining season.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Never give up, I like that kind of thinking. So I'll try again:

Well?

How? 32 years of experience.

MTD, Sr.