The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   was going to the arrow correct (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/12300-going-arrow-correct.html)

cc Mon Feb 16, 2004 07:14pm

Shooter has 2 shots second shot gets rim but the ref blows whistle for no rim. Ball goes oob but ref under says it did get rim. They used the arrow for pos. Was this correct?

Bart Tyson Mon Feb 16, 2004 07:33pm

sounds more like the ball should be awarded to the team who was not shooting the FT. I'm picturing the ball just grazing the rim and goes directly oob. The ball is probably or at least close to being oob by the time of the whistle. Thus no player had no opertunity to rebound. And even less likly the shooting team being able to rebound.

ref18 Mon Feb 16, 2004 07:38pm

Go with the arrow. In a situation like this, the ball is dead as soon as the whistle is blown. If the whistle wasn't blown someone might have had the oppertunity to rebound the ball. They did the right thing.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Feb 16, 2004 09:58pm

Quote:

Originally posted by cc
Shooter has 2 shots second shot gets rim but the ref blows whistle for no rim. Ball goes oob but ref under says it did get rim. They used the arrow for pos. Was this correct?

Could you elaborate more on this play? Was this a two or three person officiating crew? Which official, L or C/T, rule that the ball did not hit the rim? Which official, L or C/T, rule that the ball hit the rim?

MTD, Sr.

JeffTheRef Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:35pm

Which official made the call? Huh?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by cc
Shooter has 2 shots second shot gets rim but the ref blows whistle for no rim. Ball goes oob but ref under says it did get rim. They used the arrow for pos. Was this correct?

Could you elaborate more on this play? Was this a two or three person officiating crew? Which official, L or C/T, rule that the ball did not hit the rim? Which official, L or C/T, rule that the ball hit the rim?

MTD, Sr.

Inadvertent whistle, no team control, ball goes on the arrow. It's too late to kiss and make up with the other official. Assuming the whistle was blown expiditiously, it affected play.

BktBallRef Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:50pm

Here comes Mark, trying to complicate things. No, it's not the L's call. However, it doesn't matter who made the call. It's obvious that the official who made the call realized he erred or he would have stuck with his call. Team with the AP gets the ball.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:16am

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Here comes Mark, trying to complicate things. No, it's not the L's call. However, it doesn't matter who made the call. It's obvious that the official who made the call realized he erred or he would have stuck with his call. Team with the AP gets the ball.

I am not trying to complicate things. I am not ridiculing the person who posted the play, but the play is poorly worded and I would not allow my student officials ask how to handle the play if one of them asked in the form that play was posted in the thread. The poster wanted to know how to handle the situation, and to give him an answer that would be credible I wanted to know how the play actually went down.


Having said what I said, I went back and re-read the post. It appears the that C/T official had ruled that the free throw had not touched the rim, and the L decided to watch the ball and thought he saw something different. The L does not have this call. If I were the C/T in this play, my ruling would stand. The shooting team's player committed a free throw violation and the shooting team's opponents get the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the violation. There is no need to use the AP Arrow in this play. The L has to remember to officiate his primary and to trust his partner.

MTD, Sr.

Back In The Saddle Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:40am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Here comes Mark, trying to complicate things. No, it's not the L's call. However, it doesn't matter who made the call. It's obvious that the official who made the call realized he erred or he would have stuck with his call. Team with the AP gets the ball.

I am not trying to complicate things. I am not ridiculing the person who posted the play, but the play is poorly worded and I would not allow my student officials ask how to handle the play if one of them asked in the form that play was posted in the thread. The poster wanted to know how to handle the situation, and to give him an answer that would be credible I wanted to know how the play actually went down.


Having said what I said, I went back and re-read the post. It appears the that C/T official had ruled that the free throw had not touched the rim, and the L decided to watch the ball and thought he saw something different. The L does not have this call. If I were the C/T in this play, my ruling would stand. The shooting team's player committed a free throw violation and the shooting team's opponents get the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of the violation. There is no need to use the AP Arrow in this play. The L has to remember to officiate his primary and to trust his partner.

MTD, Sr.

:rolleyes: Yep, I agree. No point in getting it right.

nine01c Tue Feb 17, 2004 08:21am

I agree with Mark. If I were the L who noticed that the ball "barely grazed" the rim,
and my partner had just blown for "missing the rim," I would keep my mouth and whistle shut.

SamIAm Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:08am

I am with you on this one Mark. If the L really was concerned with getting it right, what about the lane violation or foul that L didn't see because he was looking up in the air?

I had a partner make some bad calls (from my vantage point), I quickly blew my whistle and announced that is not what happened and corrected his calls. He tried to do the same to me, I re-corrected him and made sure my ruling was applied. (This would look as stupid as it sounds, even if you tried to do it politely.)

My point is, for game management and to not make a simple call difficult, ignore your difference of opinion.
Same as you would if another official called traveling, don't butt in and say "no he didn't".

Back In The Saddle Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by SamIAm
I am with you on this one Mark. If the L really was concerned with getting it right, what about the lane violation or foul that L didn't see because he was looking up in the air?

I had a partner make some bad calls (from my vantage point), I quickly blew my whistle and announced that is not what happened and corrected his calls. He tried to do the same to me, I re-corrected him and made sure my ruling was applied. (This would look as stupid as it sounds, even if you tried to do it politely.)

My point is, for game management and to not make a simple call difficult, ignore your difference of opinion.
Same as you would if another official called traveling, don't butt in and say "no he didn't".

Okay, first of all, the poster said nothing about where the L was looking. That was another poster making an assumption. Second, the poster said nothing about how the correction was handled. And third, I'm not talking about over-ruling your partner. Just providing him with additional information to help him get it right.

As L we've got to know when the ball hits the rim on a free-throw, otherwise how could we call lane violations? If the L knows it hit the rim, it's almost certain that other people know as well.

So...if I'm the L and I KNOW that the ball hit the rim, I'm going to the T and I'm going to give him the information I have and the opportunity to get it right. If he agrees, then he'll change the call (and we'll go to the arrow in this sit.). What I'm not going to do is announce to the entire gym that my partner was wrong and we're doing it my way.

I had one of these just last week. I'm T and it appeared that the free-throw missed the rim. However, it missed to the far side, thus obscuring my view just a little, and was so close to the rim that I can't be 100% certain. But, I did not see it deflect at all or hear it hit the rim, so I blew it down. My partner either concurred, did not know, or swallowed his whistle (I don't know which, I never asked). But if he KNEW that I was wrong and came to me, I would have welcomed his information and changed my call.

Of course, there are probably times when one should do as nine01c suggests and just swallow the whistle. One good reason would be if you know you're working with a partner who believes that his "rulings" are more important than getting it right. Or one that has forgotten that proper mechanics are merely a tool to give us the best chance of getting it right, and that they have no other point, and that perfectly executed mechanics can never guarantee right calls. Or that deviating from mechanics because of actual knowledge constitutes not trusting your partner. Such a partner would appear to be more interested in his own views and opinions than in getting it right, and probably should not be trusted. :rolleyes:

Just one question, if we're not there, working as a team to get it as right as we can, why are we there?

[Edited by Back In The Saddle on Feb 17th, 2004 at 11:09 AM]

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Tue Feb 17, 2004 01:33pm

Back In The Saddle:

You are absolutely correct. cc never said where the L was looking in his origianl post, but if the L was not looking up at the ball and the rim, how was he able to decide that the free throw attempt hit the rim? That is why I asked cc to clean up his play in his original post so that we had a better understanding of what happened on the court.

I agree that we want to have all of our calls to be correct. But that still has to be done in the context of officiate your primary and to trust your partner. If and official does not officiating his/her primary and is looking where he/she is not supposed to be looking, then who is officiating his/her primary? He/she is so concerned about watching the ball in his/her partner's area and worrying whether his/her partner is making the correct calll that he/she is missing everything that is going wrong in his/her primary.

This past Friday night I was the U1 in a boys' H.S. varsity game in Michigan. This was the second time I had officiated with these two other officals as a three-man crew. The same official was the R for both games. During the pre-game for the first game, he announced that we would not rotate and the calling official for a foul would become the new C. This official officiated the L position from a spot on the endline between the where the sideline and endline intersect and where the three-point line intersects the endline. He could not have initiated a rotation if his life depended upon it because of his position in the L.

During Friday's game, the R was in the L and I was the T, table side in the first half with Team V in position of the ball in its front court. The ball was table side and six or seven feet into V's front court. In other words I had onball coverage. H1 had a legal guarding position against V1 near my sideling, when V1 attempted to drive between H1 and the sideline. H1 was stationary, and I was preparing to have to either make a charge call against V1 or an out-of-bounds call against V1, when from 35 feet away and way out of his primary the L called a blocking foul on H1. The L had no idea what was going on in his primary and he certainly did not know what was going on in my primary. I said nothing not even at half-time when he berated the entire crew for the lousy job we were doing as officials. I never said a word because I was a visitor on this crew.

With less the one minute to play in the game, the R was in the C opposite the table when V had the ball in its front court. I was L so I was not looking at the ball, but it was table side above the free throw line extended and the T had onball coverage. The C was a good thirty feet away from the ball and had at least four players directly in front of him in his primary area. You guessed it, he called traveling on V1. The T lived with the call.

With less that fifteen seconds to go in the game, H was down by three points and had the ball for a throw-in on the endline, tableside, in its backcourt. I was the T and you know who was L. V was pressing. H inbounded the ball and then V1 knocked a pass between H1 and H2 out-of-bounds on my sideline in front of V's bench. I signaled H ball. From over forty feet away the L game running giving the foul-tip signal (I did not know we were umpiring a baseball game) and signaling that H2 had knocked the ball out-of-bounds. This time I would not let him change the call. I told him that the sideline in this play was my primary, not his and that H was going to get the ball. He protested, stating that he was the R. I told him that he had no business looking where he had been looking because he had too many players in his primary to be looking at the ball.

Needless to say, he did not like what I told him. We finished the game, H lost be three points. He said not a word to me or the other official in the dressing room. All I can say it must have been a long drive home for the two of them because the U2 had driven them to the game.

Remember officiate your primary, trust your partner, and get the plays, such as correctable errors, AP Arrow resets, fights, etc. correct.

MTD, Sr.

Dan_ref Tue Feb 17, 2004 01:49pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Back In The Saddle:

You are absolutely correct. cc never said where the L was looking in his origianl post, but if the L was not looking up at the ball and the rim, how was he able to decide that the free throw attempt hit the rim? That is why I asked cc to clean up his play in his original post so that we had a better understanding of what happened on the court.


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?
Quote:



I agree that we want to have all of our calls to be correct.

That 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.

Dan_ref Tue Feb 17, 2004 01:54pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just one question, if we're not there, working as a team to get it as right as we can, why are we there?


http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...rganizeindiana


tomegun Tue Feb 17, 2004 01:57pm

MTD, in a previous thread we had a difference of opinions that probably got personal. Well, actually we've had a few of these situations. I stated that I could work with you regardless of these situations. Someone told me I couldn't. They were wrong and I knew it. Like my nephew says, your post has me "pumped!" I agree with you 100%! What you said in your post is the art, the zen, the reason we ever do a game with 3 officials. For me, your statements would give me the faith in you to focus on my primary that much more. You hit it on the head, get things right but TCB in your primary. I will continue to do just what you said in your post and not take other things so seriously. Since I used the word zen you can probably tell I'm a Lakers fan. Boy do we need some zen!

tomegun Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:00pm

Quote:

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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just one question, if we're not there, working as a team to get it as right as we can, why are we there?


http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...rganizeindiana


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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Just one question, if we're not there, working as a team to get it as right as we can, why are we there?


http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...rganizeindiana


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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:19pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
Quote:

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.
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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:31pm

Quote:

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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Quote:

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.
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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 03:20pm

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 03:36pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
Quote:

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.
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".

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 04:00pm

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

Back In The Saddle Tue Feb 17, 2004 04:04pm

Generalizations are always bad
 
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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 04:20pm

Re: Generalizations are always bad
 
Quote:

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. Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:07pm

Quote:

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 Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:10pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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. Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:38pm

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. Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:40pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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?


How? 32 years of experience.

MTD, Sr.

Adam Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:32pm

"Trust your partner." That's the thought that keeps going through my head this past few days. It's hit me hard as I've been going over Friday night's fight. My partner was right on top of the fight, and I came in from about the 3 pt. line to control the other 8 (only missed one). As I was coming in focusing on getting the numbers of any extra participants, I trusted that my partner had the numbers of the first two; and he trusted that I had a bigger picture of the situation.
Talking to my assignor, it really seems like we nailed it. If either of us had tried to do too much, we'd have kicked it bad.

tomegun Wed Feb 18, 2004 06:26am

Re: Generalizations are always bad
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle


* 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

1. I agree with you when there are players with space in between them. However if you have some contact right in front of you and you make an OOB call I will not give you any information. Why? Because I trust you saw the whole play and you made the correct call for that situation. The OOB rather than the foul.
2. Can you please break it all the way down for me and tell me where this would occur on the 3 pointer? At the top of the key? I can see that. In the deep corner? I can see that too. In the half court on a 3 pointer at the free-throw line extended? In what situation would we have 4 or 6 eyes on this play? In MTD's situation I can see it. It is amazing how someone can move to look past 4 players in their primary to see a phantom travel across the court. This guy already had more than his share of the players to watch and he bypassed them for the travel. Like MTD said, this could result in disaster. Bart also game some real statistics for improving our accuracy.
3. I agree with you on this one. It can happen every game due to post play.

Bart Tyson Wed Feb 18, 2004 09:38am

Re: Re: Generalizations are always bad
 
Quote:

* A travel in front of the lead when he's busy looking for contact
[/B]
Quote:


3. I agree with you on this one. It can happen every game due to post play. [/B]
Sorry, you won't get me to agree on this one, with one exception and that is with rebounding/put back action. If I am the L and I have ball-player action in my primary, It is my responsibility to watch for a travel. Going by your philosophy, we could say the same thing about all three primarys. I've had partners call a travel in front of me when I was L, and it wasn't a travel. Bottom line a travel is NOT a "got to get" call.

cmathews Wed Feb 18, 2004 09:52am

Bart, in theory I agree with your post, but in reality, I don't mind at all if my partner comes and gets a travel. I also think that a travel is one that sometimes needs to be retrieved. Fast break layup lead officiating the defense, is s/he there or not, are they about to make contact, misses the extra step by the ball handler, the trail comes and gets it, everyone in the gym except the lead had it...it needs to be gotten. Another reason I don't mind someone getting a travel in my area is that traveling is my weak area. I know what traveling is by rule, and I apply it pretty well, but I admittedly miss a few, and if someone else sees it, it doesn't bother me that they get it..

Dan_ref Wed Feb 18, 2004 09:54am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Dan_Ref:

I think you are confused as to what officiating your primary means...rest of lecture deleted

sigh...thanks anyway

:rolleyes:

Dan_ref Wed Feb 18, 2004 09:56am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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?


How? 32 years of experience.

MTD, Sr.

Must be the political season, classic non-answer. Anyway, by 32 years of experience does you mean you telepathically communicate with the ball & it tells you when it hits the rim?

Or do you mean you just guess?


dblref Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:41am

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by cc
Shooter has 2 shots second shot gets rim but the ref blows whistle for no rim. Ball goes oob but ref under says it did get rim. They used the arrow for pos. Was this correct?

Could you elaborate more on this play? Was this a two or three person officiating crew? Which official, L or C/T, rule that the ball did not hit the rim? Which official, L or C/T, rule that the ball hit the rim?

MTD, Sr.

What difference would this make? One of them blew the whistle and the ball is dead. I say go to the arrow. I thought I was wrong 1 time, but I was mistaken.

footlocker Wed Feb 18, 2004 03:49pm

AP arrow. yes, that is the answer to this question.

Mechanically, this happened to me. I was trail. I hated the fact that my Lead was watching the rim. What else are we missing?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:06pm

Quote:

Originally posted by footlocker
AP arrow. yes, that is the answer to this question.

Mechanically, this happened to me. I was trail. I hated the fact that my Lead was watching the rim. What else are we missing?


The AP Arrow is not the answer to this question. The T signaled a free throw violation by the shooter for not hitting the rim. The T is primary on this play and the only opinion that matters is the T's as to whether the ball hit the rim or not. The T has to make this call everytime and not let the L make the call for him. If the officials go to the AP Arrow or allow the L's call to stand, then every time the T makes a call concerning the rim on a free throw, one coach or the other is going to want the L to step and "help" his/her partner.

Officiate your primary and trust your partner.

MTD, Sr.

Camron Rust Thu Feb 19, 2004 01:46pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:

Originally posted by footlocker
AP arrow. yes, that is the answer to this question.

Mechanically, this happened to me. I was trail. I hated the fact that my Lead was watching the rim. What else are we missing?


The AP Arrow is not the answer to this question. The T signaled a free throw violation by the shooter for not hitting the rim. The T is primary on this play and the only opinion that matters is the T's as to whether the ball hit the rim or not. The T has to make this call everytime and not let the L make the call for him. If the officials go to the AP Arrow or allow the L's call to stand, then every time the T makes a call concerning the rim on a free throw, one coach or the other is going to want the L to step and "help" his/her partner.

Officiate your primary and trust your partner.

MTD, Sr.

Still, if the L sees something clearly different from the T, whether he <em>should</em> see it or not, the L should give the T that information. It's our job to get the call right.

Of course, the L shouldn't be looking there.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1