Changing your partner's call

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
This is how your crew is supposed to work!


You don't see one of these guys standing over in the corner trying to do his own thing, do you? Nope, these guys are working together!

That, JR, is a great crew !

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
But please tell me how the same procedure is gonna work out if the official who made the original call is just as equally and adamantly sure that he got the original call right and didn't miss it.

It's that "trust" thing again. If I blow that whistle, you have to trust me, b/c I'm telling you that your eyes tricked you. No matter how sure you are, I'm telling you that you missed it.

If we huddle, I'm going to tell you the exact same thing verbally. In the Fed directive, I'm telling you non-verbally. "I know you think you had it. But you have to trust me now, b/c I know you missed it".

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

It's that "trust" thing again. If I blow that whistle, you have to trust me, b/c I'm telling you that your eyes tricked you. No matter how sure you are, I'm telling you that you missed it.

If we huddle, I'm going to tell you the exact same thing verbally. In the Fed directive, I'm telling you non-verbally. "I know you think you had it. But you have to trust me now, b/c I know you missed it".

Yabut.....

Chuck, what if I trust myself just as much as I trust you? It's not a matter of me NOT trusting you; it's a matter of me knowing that I had the call right. Which is exactly the same thing as you knowing that you have the call right too- even though we differ. This procedure doesn't allow for anything but us ending up butting heads out there, instead of us getting together for one of those quick, 10-15 second talks to get on the same page.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Jurassic, I'm glad we are still on the same page. Not sure why others aren't seeing our point.

• One action (foot location)
  two different viewers
  have two different perspectives of actual foot location
  Primary official says foot WAS NOT on the line and signals for 3-point attmpt.
  Secondary official says foot WAS on the line and stops game to "correct" Primary official's 'obvious' error.
  Both officials are fully confident their respective calls were correct.

Who has final authority? Whose call/perception is correct?

Per this, seemingly innocent guidance, the Secondary official is given final authority to correct the Primary official without further consideration... and many here are willing to accept that. Go figure. Oh well.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

That, JR, is a great crew !

Well, the short one in the middle might just be a litle out of step. We'll call him "Chuck".

[Camron Rust]

I'm on the side that this is NOT a call. A call is when the whistle is blown. No official can overrule another's calls: violations and fouls. This is just indicating how much to score.

Consider the two points of view:

1. I didn't see a foot on the line
   
2. I saw the foot on the line
   

One is conclusive, one is not. If one official saw the foot on the line, it must be a 2.

I also agree that in general we shouldn't both be seeing this...but there are gray areas of the court (especially on transition).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
Jurassic, I'm glad we are still on the same page. Not sure why others aren't seeing our point.

• One action (foot location)
  two different viewers
  have two different perspectives of actual foot location
  Primary official says foot WAS NOT on the line and signals for 3-point attmpt.
  Secondary official says foot WAS on the line and stops game to "correct" Primary official's 'obvious' error.
  Both officials are fully confident their respective calls were correct.

Who has final authority? Whose call/perception is correct?

Per this, seemingly innocent guidance, the Secondary official is given final authority to correct the Primary official without further consideration... and many here are willing to accept that. Go figure. Oh well.

Yup, if the officials weren't each equally confident that they were correct, then the procedure is fine. If they are both adamant about correct though, then get together and try and straighten it out. If you know what you're doing, the game gets delayed a max of maybe 30 seconds by getting together. And you maintain your crew integrity.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Chuck, what if I trust myself just as much as I trust you? It's not a matter of me NOT trusting you; it's a matter of me knowing that I had the call right.

But here's the thing. You didn't have the call right. That's a major point in this discussion. Psychologically, you trust your own calls. We all do. If we don't, then we don't last very long.

I guess for my own part, if I have a partner whom I trust, I am more willing to believe that I missed a call than I am to believe that my partner would stop the game with less than 100% certitude that I erred.

Once I have that faith in my partner, if s/he stops the game to correct that touchdown signal, I know that I missed the call. No matter what I think I saw, I know that s/he wouldn't be sticking his/her nose in there unless s/he was absolutely certain of the foot on the line. Since I was corrected, I was wrong.

And we're not talking about this happening on all kinds of plays all over the court. We're talking about a foot on the 3-point line in transition or in a gray area of responsibilty.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
If they are both adamant about correct though, then get together and try and straighten it out. If you know what you're doing, the game gets delayed a max of maybe 30 seconds by getting together. And you maintain your crew integrity.

How do you figure a huddle is any better in this sitch? All it does is present the opportunity for an argument on the court. If your partner comes to you in a huddle and says, "Woody, his foot was definitely on the line," are you going to say "No it wasn't"? Do you want to start a testosterone contest out there about who is going to give up their positive info first?

No. You're going to say, "Are you 100% positive?" He's going to say "Yes" (otherwise he wouldn't have come to you), and you're going to say "Ok, two points". How is this any different from the Fed procedure. It's exactly the same except without the words.

Once you pre-game it, "Tweet!! Two!" equals "Woody, you missed that. . . Are you 100% sure? . . . Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have come to you. . . Ok, two points".

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

How do you figure a huddle is any better in this sitch? All it does is present the opportunity for an argument on the court. If your partner comes to you in a huddle and says, "Woody, his foot was definitely on the line," are you going to say "No it wasn't"? Do you want to start a testosterone contest out there about who is going to give up their positive info first?

No. You're going to say, "Are you 100% positive?" He's going to say "Yes" (otherwise he wouldn't have come to you), and you're going to say "Ok, two points". How is this any different from the Fed procedure. It's exactly the same except without the words.

Once you pre-game it, "Tweet!! Two!" equals "Woody, you missed that. . . Are you 100% sure? . . . Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have come to you. . . Ok, two points".

Chuck, it's NOT the same. With the huddle, I change my own call. With the overruling thing, you holler to everyone in the gym that I blew it royal. Okay, YOU don't, but that's what they hear. At this point I might as well take a long walk on a short pier. At least if you're going to tweet and yell the correction, yell it to the partner, and let them give the info to the table. "Tweet!! Partner, I've got a foot on the line." Now I can say, "Thanks! Hey, table -- make that a 2." My dignity is preserved. Some folks may not need that type of delicate handling -- but the ones who do need it are the ones you most want to treat in this more careful way.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Chuck, it's NOT the same. With the huddle, I change my own call. With the overruling thing, you holler to everyone in the gym that I blew it royal. Okay, YOU don't, but that's what they hear. At this point I might as well take a long walk on a short pier.

Aaahhh yes, the subtle finesse of the boisterous over-ruler. Which way to the pier?

All for a point. No not to make clear an important concept... I mean a point, a single point, a score of one, in a basketball game full of single points. One official goes on, unaware of the inflicted injury as the town braggadocio, another goes to the pier of infamy, and one team looses a single point in a game of missed shots and violations.

A different perception.

I guess this has prepared me for when someone bragadocio does it to me. Yeah, whatever, partner. Water off a duck's back... at the pier.

[JRutledge]

Dan, Chuck and myself have all come to the conclusion (it appears) that this works. If JR, Juulie and DTTonyBrown, does not, that is OK too.

I think this is a good mechanic and I have never been offended if a partner were to do this. If they are going thru all that trouble to stop the clock, then it is on them. But in many cases the clock is never stopped, because two officials have both signaled two separate calls. One is signaling a 3 point shot, they other might be pointing to the floor indicating, we have to do something. I know before I signal I do make some kind of eye contact with my partner to see if there is a conflict in what we saw (in a dual coverage area). The points are not final until we raise our arms or we signal to the table we just have a two. Again, this is something you can talk about during pregame. In most cases no one will even notice you even did this. When the ball is in transition, I really am not going to be stubborn if the Lead sees something different. If they clearly see the foot on the line, I understand they probably were in a better position to make a call. I will thank them later and buy them a drink for saving my hide. It makes absolutely no difference if they stop the clock or signal they just have a two.

Maybe one of these days I will run into someone that feels like you guys (JR, Juulie and DTTB), but I have yet to. This procedure is taught in the many camps and association meetings I attend. I have never had anyone speak up and say, "what if I think I got it right?" I am sure there are other officials that fell exactly the way you do, but I have yet to meet them personally. This procedure does not apply to anything else except 3 point shots. So to compare what we do on out of bounds calls and foul calls does not apply. I cannot think of any other situation where this type of action is taken in this fashion. But this is about points, not judgment.

This conversation has been great. This is the reason I come here. I love to discuss and debate without all the name calling and calling each other out. We just have an honest debate and it does not mean we have to just agree. But I do not have to work with any of those that disagree so whatever side you are on is really not going to change my mind. But I have learned something I might not have been aware of because if you guys had not made your points aware. I just think that is why we have a pregame conference in the locker room to iron out those differences and come to a conclusion of what we will do when he get on the floor.

Peace

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by SavaahnTy
my partners and I will discuss it during a normal stop in play...ie ball out of bounds, foul, etc.

Just make sure it's within the two live ball period allowed by rule 2-10.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

If you think that I made an obvious error, hey, tell me about it. If I agree with you, or I'm not 100% confident of my original call, then I'll change that call. If I don't agree with you and I'm sure that I got it right, then I won't change my call. It's that simple. I'll live or die with what the films say then- which should be the right way to end up.

Only problem I see is when a team now loses by one point - they're not going to be too happy with the game film - they want the mis-called 2/3 to be changed immediately.

If you and your partners (or as an evaluator) want to come together as a crew and talk this over - fine. I tend to think the best thing to do is wipe off the one point, and move on. It gets is out of everyone's head quicker and gets the call right.

[Goose]

This thread actually prompted me into registering!!

I usually try and keep my mouth shut, but this thread has had an adverse effect on me. After 18 years of officiating, I'm wondering after reading some of these egotistical comments if I really want to work any longer. And ref's wonder why there is such a negative attitude towards them!

Unlike some of the posters here, I have not done a perfect game. I can tell you, when I do, I will quit, because everything will go downhill from there. I have always instructed in my pregames if at any time you see something do not hesitate to call it, period. I think it is more important to get it right in the end than to hurt my ego or make me look inferior. If that is the case, so be it. I get yelled at anyway so what makes this any different? The most important thing is to get the call right. Besides if I miss something and my partner picks it up, kudo to him and us as a team. It will only make me work harder to get into better position, besides 99.9 percent of the time no one will know nor will they care as long as the call is correct.

I'm in the same boat as Chuck and will say that I have worked with him, and I adhere to the belief that trust is really the most important thing out there. With that being said, if he were to stop play after I signaled a 3, and changed it to a two, instead of being upset, I'd say thanks! Again, we're a team. I know for a fact that he would not have blown a correction if he had not seen it differently and truth be told, I can live with that even if I feel I am right.

Our board takes the position of no need for a conference. Conferences just cause more problems which in the end usually require an explanation to one or both coaches. Once you start conferencing, it is hard to stop and I'm sure we have all worked with conference freaks who think they are running a clinic. This does not mean there isn't a time and place for a conference, but they should be the exception and last resort IMO. Basketball is not football and I think conferences can only detract and give the appearance that we are not on the same page, even if we get the call right.

Basically, this thread is a pathetic picture of officials arguing over a simple matter. There is a procedure in place and our board has used it for years without incident that I know of.


goose