Nope, I don't recognize it as an answer, I recognize it as a guess.

And why do you keep saying someone is not doing his job in this sitch? Are you telling me that it is strictly forbidden for 2 officials to both view the same play?

Judgment calls are those that involve adv/disadv. This is not one of these calls.

I signal 3 on a shot taken in my area of responsibility. You do the oh-no-no-no and signal that it's really a 2. I still freaking think that's it IS REALLY a 3- IN MY JUDGEMENT.

Now whatinthehell do we do?

If you pregamed it as the fed advises in their bulletin you would begin the game with the understanding that the person who sees a foot on the line is by definiton correct.

That's whatinthehell we do.

Take a referee timeout and shoot for it! :)
 

if i know the foot was on the line, i'm not going to bother with it if i don't know for sure, so if i say it was on the line, you know that i'm 110% right, and if your too proud to admit you missed their foot on the line i guess you just have to stop and argue and make us both look like a$$e$

There are "dual" coverage areas.
 

DownTownTonyBrown,

Most 3 point shots have two officials looking at the shot (3 Man). In two man there are many gray areas where both officials are easily looking at the same shot. How is that "someone is watching your area?" Even in 3 Man and I am the lead, right at the 3 point line I have coverage area that I might be looking at. It is possible if a ball handler has more than one player guarding him, I might be the only one that sees where the shooter's foot is located. I still have the coverage of the baseline; I know I am looking at the feet to see if the ball handler steps on the baseline. I might see if he is stepping on the 3 point line as well. You make it sound like no one but one official can see where a foot is on the line. That is not the case at all.

Now this is really not just about whether someone should change this call or not. If you feel there is something wrong with this, then you need to make that known in a pregame with your partners. Then when they see the film and you are wrong, your partners can state they did not see the play. Then all that heat will come on you instead of them. My only point here is that you are a team and I know I would want a teammate to help me on a play like this.

Peace

Re: Take a referee timeout and shoot for it! :)
 

Actually, I don't because actually, you're not. ;)

Judgment calls are those that involve adv/disadv. This is not one of these calls. [/B][/QUOTE]I signal 3 on a shot taken in my area of responsibility. You do the oh-no-no-no and signal that it's really a 2. I still freaking think that's it IS REALLY a 3- IN MY JUDGEMENT.

Now whatinthehell do we do? [/B][/QUOTE]

If you pregamed it as the fed advises in their bulletin you would begin the game with the understanding that the person who sees a foot on the line is by definiton correct.

That's whatinthehell we do. [/B][/QUOTE]And the official who didn't see a foot on the line, and is also 100% sure that he didn't see that foot on the line, and to top it all off, it's his call in the first place and no one elses, is now by definition incorrect?

The problem is that I would never dream of pre-gaming it the way that the FED advises. If you call OOB off of white, but I see a tip by blue, do I just say "Nope, white ball" and head the other way expecting you to let blue take a throw-in? If a dribbler steps on a line(your line in your area), and you call them OOB, does that mean that I can say- "nope, I didn't see them step on the line. It's still the dribbler's ball" and expect you to immediately give the ball back to the dribbler's team? There's no difference in doing any of this than also taking over a 2/3 point call. You're just substituting your judgement for your partner's, without bothering to check with them first.

Of course, somewhere along the line, maybe someone should point out to the goober in Fedlandia that came up with this little procedure that there already exists these funny little RULES in the damn book - i.e. R2-6- that says <font color = red>"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"</font> and R2-7-8(OFFICIALS DUTIES) -<font color = red>"signaling a 3-point goal..."</font>.

I signal 3 on a shot taken in my area of responsibility. You do the oh-no-no-no and signal that it's really a 2. I still freaking think that's it IS REALLY a 3- IN MY JUDGEMENT.

Now whatinthehell do we do? [/B][/QUOTE]

If you pregamed it as the fed advises in their bulletin you would begin the game with the understanding that the person who sees a foot on the line is by definiton correct.

That's whatinthehell we do. [/B][/QUOTE]And the official who didn't see a foot on the line, and is also 100% sure that he didn't see that foot on the line, and to top it all off, it's his call in the first place and no one elses, is now by definition incorrect?

The problem is that I would never dream of pre-gaming it the way that the FED advises. If you call OOB off of white, but I see a tip by blue, do I just say "Nope, white ball" and head the other way expecting you to let blue take a throw-in? If a dribbler steps on a line(your line in your area), and you call them OOB, does that mean that I can say- "nope, I didn't see them step on the line. It's still the dribbler's ball" and expect you to immediately give the ball back to the dribbler's team? There's no difference in doing any of this than also taking over a 2/3 point call. You're just substituting your judgement for your partner's, without bothering to check with them first.

Of course, somewhere along the line, maybe someone should point out to the goober in Fedlandia that came up with this little procedure that there already exists these funny little RULES in the damn book - i.e. R2-6- that says <font color = red>"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"</font> and R2-7-8(OFFICIALS DUTIES) -<font color = red>"signaling a 3-point goal..."</font>. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm...are we officials out there to GET it right or BE right?...

...checking our egos in at the door beforehand and picking them up after the game seems to work pretty good in my experiences.

If you pregamed it as the fed advises in their bulletin you would begin the game with the understanding that the person who sees a foot on the line is by definiton correct.

That's whatinthehell we do. [/B][/QUOTE]And the official who didn't see a foot on the line, and is also 100% sure that he didn't see that foot on the line, and to top it all off, it's his call in the first place and no one elses, is now by definition incorrect?

The problem is that I would never dream of pre-gaming it the way that the FED advises. If you call OOB off of white, but I see a tip by blue, do I just say "Nope, white ball" and head the other way expecting you to let blue take a throw-in? If a dribbler steps on a line(your line in your area), and you call them OOB, does that mean that I can say- "nope, I didn't see them step on the line. It's still the dribbler's ball" and expect you to immediately give the ball back to the dribbler's team? There's no difference in doing any of this than also taking over a 2/3 point call. You're just substituting your judgement for your partner's, without bothering to check with them first.

Of course, somewhere along the line, maybe someone should point out to the goober in Fedlandia that came up with this little procedure that there already exists these funny little RULES in the damn book - i.e. R2-6- that says <font color = red>"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"</font> and R2-7-8(OFFICIALS DUTIES) -<font color = red>"signaling a 3-point goal..."</font>. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm...are we officials out there to GET it right or BE right?...

...checking our egos in at the door beforehand and picking them up after the game seems to work pretty good in my experiences. [/B][/QUOTE]Hmmmm, I believe that we are discussing what is the best WAY to get the call right. You're assuming something completely different, I think.

This is why pregame conferences are so important.
 

JR,

I do not completely disagree with your point of view, but on 3 point shots this is a very widely accepted procedure. It is accepted in college games I have worked. I do not know a level this is not accepted. But this procedure is very specific to 3 point shots. I agree with you about out of bounds calls and foul calls. In those situations we blow the whistle and stop play completely. Three point shots are not "clock stoppers." For the most part we might just make eye contact and do nothing but back off and signal the final decision. We do have different angles and I know I am not so stubborn that I cannot back off what in my mind is a "questionable" look at the play.

This is why I say pregame conferences are so important. You get to gauge the opinions of your partners and not be totally blindsided when the lights are on.

Peace

Hmmmm, I believe that we are discussing what is the best WAY to get the call right. You're assuming something completely different, I think. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, not really. If your partner comes in to correct you, I'm assuming he is 100% sure or he wouldn't be coming in. I'm not going to pull out my ego and pompously think that there is no way I missed that call.

I uncharacteristicly back Dan 100% on this. Every pre-game should involve some verbiage such as, "If someone sees a tip or a 3 that should be a 2 (or vice versa), blow your whistle stop the game, and get it right. We aren't going to huddle and talk about it. If there is any question by the official who originally made the call, talk about it in the locker room at halftime or after the game. Saying that, don't come in unless you are 100% sure & correct!"

I really do not know what the phrase "get it right" has to do with this discussion. If two officials clearly signal something different, not much ego has to do with it. We have to solve the issue somehow. I think we all strive to "get it right," I know I do. But we have to follow some kind of procedure to come to a final conclusion.

Peace

2 person game. Ball is in trail's primary. Ball swings to lead's side, free throw line extended, outside arc. Trail moves toward center circle to get better angle on play. Shot goes up. Lead signals 3, trail CLEARLY sees foot is on 3 point line. Shot goes in. Lead raises both hands.

If I'm the trail, I'm not going to let that go as a 3. And if I'm the lead, I'll go with my partner, since he had a better angle on it. This is not a judgement call,it is a point of fact.

Re: This is why pregame conferences are so important.
 

Jeff, I was aware of the procedure and how it's used. What I vehemently disagree with is the school of thought that this procedure should be used on ALL 3-point calls. If you get one that is questionable in one of the official's minds, especially if that official maybe had the primary call in the first place, then some discussion SHOULD take place, imo. I just don't think that you can make up a blanket procedure that will cover all of the situations that you're gonna run into out there. You better pre-game something that's gonna cover the situation where 2 officials disagree and they both still think that they each have the correct call. You gotta get together in that case.