Jurrasic you should get a kick out of this.

I swear some of the garbage they put in these "Guides" is terrible... terrible advice. Listen to this "specific procedure for getting the call right."

Article talking about staying with the shooter ...
"Changing the call. If one official signals a successful three-point attempt and the other official is certain that the shooter was on or inside the three-point arc, there's a specific procedure for getting the call right.

The correcting official should stop the clock, signal a two-point attempt and simultaneously verbalize that the shooter's foot was on or over the three-point arc. There's no need to huddle together with your partners to confer. If you clearly saw the play, there's nothing to talk about. Getting together adds confusion. Stopping the clock and signaling immediately gets the game going quickly and smoothly.

Discuss changing successful three-point field goals in your pregame conference with your partners.

... I'm thinking you might want to discuss which of you are going to finish the game because I'm not gong to be working with you after that. If there is anything to discuss in your pregame it should be who is responsible for what portions of the three-point arc and ONLY ONE OF YOU MAKE THE CALL.

"Say partner, if you mess up a three-point attempt (and I'm gonna be watchin' you to make sure you do it correctly), I'm just gonna stop the clock, correct your mistake for you (in front of a packed gym, the coaches, players, everybody, we'll probably be on TV too), you bring the ball in and we'll get going again. I don't want to cover your butt too many times so don't let it happen very often. Hey, have a great game."

Ouch! I'm thinking "Where's my role of duct tape? You're staying in the lockeroom buddy, I mean partner." :D

Lah, me! Tony, before I comment, where exactly did you find this little gem?

So Tony, what would you do if you noticed the shooter's foot was on the line and your partner gave 3 points?

DownTownTonyBrown,

Well that is the approved procedure in the area I live. But you might not go an entire season using it once. It mostly happens on transition plays where the angle of the calling official might not be the best. Not sure if that is what you agree with, but this is a regular pregame issue we discuss. This is the only issue that something changed (that I can think of) without some kind of discussion.

Peace

First of all, I shouldn't be watching it. One makes the decision not two. Mick, what time is it where you're at... my watch says it is a different time here. Which one of us is correct?

Guess I would let his call go and assume I was wrong (if wasn't performing my own prescribed duties and my eyes happened to be wandering).

JR, this quote came out of the NFHS Preseason Basketball Guide 04-05.

I didn't ask you if you SHOULD be watching it, I asked you what you would do IF you happened to see it while referring.

Clearly, 100% certain, A1's foot is on the line. Your partner puts up both hands.

What do you do?

Actually the part I disagree with is the stopping the clock and verbalizing. I have been in a few games where it was near FT Line extended, or I was lead in fast transition and I or my partner saw foot on line and other signalled the preliminary for 3.

The one official gives a hard signal that it was two pointing toward the floor, Almost always the other official immediately recognizes the signal and will change it to match his...

I dont think this is overruling but helping out, sometimes from one angle it appears that player was behind while at another angle his foot was on the line.

Trail is not calling far basline corner and lead is not calling the tip of the arc... these plays almost always happen near FT line extended

This summer at camp we had a similar "change" situation and we were actually criticized for getting together and talking about it.
Here's the situation, I was C and a shot came off the rim. A1 has good boxout on B1 but B1 goes up and gets the ball for a tap and falls into A1 hard. I come in with a push, but didn't see the ball drop because I was watching the rebounding position. As soon as I call it my partners are asking if the bucket counts, and in a not so great moment of my officiating career I replied, "what bucket?". Anyway, my trail was a good official and when we conferred, we agreed that the tap should count because the contact occurred after the tap. Anyway, I understand about flow of the game and all, but what's wrong with making sure you get it right? To me that makes more sense as a partner than overruling him or getting overruled and having coaches and fans see an official as "wrong".

DownTownTonyBrown.
Time is U.P. ;)
mick

I disagree with you here. I know in 3 Person both the T and the C have 3 point shots in the middle of the court. It is always possible to have one official see the play clearly and another get screened. I know unless I have some real obvious evidence on a 3 point shot I have to make a decision right then and now. If my partner sees something clearly wrong with my ruling (on this call), stop the clock and change it.

In basketball especially there are duel coverage areas and calls that might have two or more officials looking at the same play and come to different conclusions. I know when I call a foul it is possible that my partner has a different opinion; we have to go with one of the decisions. This is not any different. Just on 3 point shots you are not going to stop play on regular calls. I would rather have my partner stop play and change this, then go to the tape later and find out I was wrong. It is one thing to make a foul call, but quite another to award points wrong if you ask me.

Peace

Dan's question is exactly the right thing to ask. Nobody is suggesting that you hold your partner's hand on every call. But -- especially in 2-whistle -- there are gray areas in coverage.

So. . .

If you are 100% certain that your partner missed the foot on the line, how should that be handled?

Should you ignore it? or fix it?

You should fix it. I would hope that there would be no debate about that.

So. . .

How do you fix it? Huddle up and let the calling partner correct him/herself? Or simply inform the table and keep going?

I think there are probably good points on each side of that question. Around here, we follow that Fed guideline. Tweet! "Two!" Throw-in. Pretty easy.

Did you mean to write, "In fencing especially. . ."? ;)

Chuck you beat me to it...

I was thinking that Aaron Burr would pop out soon!

Let me rearrange and see if you recognize this as an answer:

Guess (if I wasn't performing my own prescribed duties and my eyes happened to be wandering) I would let his call go and assume I was wrong.

If it was my call and my partner was mistakenly calling it a three, guess I would do something to correct him and the scorers. Not sure I would stop the clock but might emphatically show two fingers and run by the table to yell the same to them. Next break, my partner and I will have a little discussion on responsibilities.

I must assume that this really is a prescribed procedure if both you and Jeff are espousing it. Where is this 'change your partner's call procedure described/stipulated?' I've never seen or heard such a comment. I've only heard the opposite - that you never change your partner's judgement call. That if you feel strongly about it, you can present your side of the story and the calling official can PERHAPS now, make a more informed decision. Until today, I've never seen anything that says if I want to change your call, I can flatly just stop the game and change it.

Two different things...
 

judgement call or definite 3 or not...it's either they are behind the line or not...it's not like a block/charge you are changing... if you see the foot on the line and your partner gave a 3 signal, you know it shouldn't be a 3, so get it right...whether you can easily say it was a two by showing the table, but then the other coach will probably stop play anyways and say "well your partner said it was a 3, so you will have to stop the clock and discuss it anyways, so just take a quick moment and blow it dead call it a two for being on the line and throw the ball back in..

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.

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]

I believe there's also a rule in there about 2 points being earned if the shooter is on or within the 3 point line, 3 points otherwise.

You don't seem too concerned with violating that one.

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. [/B][/QUOTE]And what if YOU are 100% sure that you WERE 100% right and that your partner coming in had it wrong, are you still going to defer to your partner? Even if the call was in YOUR area of responsibility to start with? That's exactly why you should be discussing the call instead of trying to make your partner ASSUME your judgement.

Judgement?
 

Anything I render my decision on is what I would consider a judgement. Maybe it's my baseball mentalitybut, I'm feeling like nearly everything in the game of basketball is a judgement call.

No matter what I say, it is not going to move the shooter's foot. But it is my judgement whether the shooter's foot is on the line or behind it and therefore it is my judgement whether this is a three-point attempt or a two-pointer. Not being allowed to use instant replay, an official must make that judgement.

Every officials manual I've looked at assigns particular sections of the floor and thereby, particular section of the three-point arc to an individual official. Shots at any ONE point along the arc are the responsibility of ONE official. See your mechanics manual paragraph 205, diagrams 7 & 8, for 2-man and diagrams 37, 38, & 39 for 3-man.

If it is your section of the arc, I will be expecting you to call it. And I'm not going to correct your call to all of the audience if I think you got it wrong. Egregiously wrong? Okay, I will probably offer you some help. BUT I WOULD NEVER STOP THE CLOCK AND YELL TO THE TABLE THAT "MY PARTNER WAS WRONG. THAT WAS A TWO POINT SHOT." and then expect to just continue on.

Your authority on the court is just the same as mine and I'm not going to over-rule your decisions. If you need my help, I'll do all I can. But I am not going to over-rule your judgement of foot location.

Quite frankly I would not want to work with a partner that felt they could wantonly over-rule me with no consideration of my responsibilities/decisions. That doesn't inspire any kind of team spirit or partner respect. And that means you don't do a good job for that particular game. :(

I believe there's also a rule in there about 2 points being earned if the shooter is on or within the 3 point line, 3 points otherwise.

You don't seem too concerned with violating that one. [/B][/QUOTE]How exactly do I know that I really did violate that one if I honestly think that I did get it right and my partner is wrong, and we don't discuss it? How do you know that your partner wasn't the one to violate that one when he tried to overrule your original call?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 12th, 2004 at 04:08 PM]

I do not think anyone said this is the case for all 3 point shots. This is a very rare procedure used. It might happen mostly in transition or with pressure defenses.


Well that is why you discuss this in pregame. It is not uncommon for me to bring something up that a partner might disagree with on some level. I will never know if I do not bring it up as a topic or state my own opinion one what we should do. Even on out of bounds calls there is not much or any discussion at all. And this is so rare that you might go an entire season and not have one of these 3 point calls changed. I know with the level of official that I normally work with this is almost never an issue. I cannot tell you when the last time I was in a game where the clock had to be stopped to change a call. I can think of a couple of times where it was clear one official had a three point shot and the other had the foot on the line and one of the officials did not signal 3 points because they were unclear.

Peace

How exactly do I know that I really did violate that one if I honestly think that that I did get it right and my partner is wrong, and we don't discuss it? How do you know that your partner wasn't the one to violate that one when he tried to overrule your original call? [/B][/QUOTE]

When my partner toots his whistle and puts up 2 fingers I know 3 things:

1. I aint perfect
2. I made this confession before the game
3. I trust him enough to defer when he speaks up to bail my @ss out.

That's how I know he got it right.

When my partner toots his whistle and puts up 2 fingers I know 3 things:

1. I aint perfect
2. I made this confession before the game
3. I trust him enough to defer when he speaks up to bail my @ss out.

That's how I know he got it right.
[/B][/QUOTE]Yabut.....

What about the extremely rare circumstance where you might have actually had the call right?

Yabut.....

What about the extremely rare circumstance where you might have actually had the call right? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ahhhh...that happens so rarely that I don't worry about it.

$0.02
 

I refuse to guess on threes.
If I see a three, I mark it.
If I don't see it, I do nothing except get into a better position next time.

If my partner marks a three, it is a three.
If my partner fails to mark a three, it may be a three.
mick

Equal authority but different responsibilities.
 

Many seem to be missing the point - don't over-rule your partner.

One foot can only be in one location at any one time. One foot - one location. Your eyes see the foot and know that it can only be in one location. My eyes work the same way. One foot - one location. The problem is two sets of eyes (yours and mine) may "see" two different locations... for the one foot. Compound that with the fact that most players have two feet... two sets of eyes now we have four possibly different foot locations. Whose set of eyes are correct? I don't think it is just whoever says they saw it last obviously sees most accurately.

Several of you must not have understood my question to Mick about "What time is it there?" Your perception of the time is displayed on your watch. My perception is displayed on my watch. The real, true time is completely independent of either one of those watches. But my perception is that my watch is 100% correct... as is yours for your watch. Whose is right? Perhaps neither one. This is why decisions are rendered by ONE official, and not two, or a committee.

One official has responsibility for making the determination of 3 or 2-point attempt based upon where that shot is taken. The time to make the effort to get the call correct is not after the shot has been taken but before. Get in the position to make that call before the shot is taken. That's what I do, and my partner has never come to me and said he was going to over-rule my 3-pointer decision. I have already made the effort to get that call correct... the first time. Don't come tell me my effort was wasted and that you are going to over-rule my decision. Your watch reads different than mine... but we weren't supposed to be looking at your watch.

This getting the call right is some, ONE, official's responsibility based upon the location of the call. If I have any doubt about my position and view of the play, I will ask for help. But if I make the decision, I don't want you over-ruling me.

And it is surely not "He who makes the call lastly, makes it most correctly." That's the garbage of which I originally spoke.

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Oct 12th, 2004 at 04:45 PM]

Then maybe we have a 2 second conversation. Either way is going to take about the same amount of time it would to change the call.

The only situations I have ever seen changed in any of my games are when you have a signal for a 3 that is changed to a two.

Peace

And what is the result of that conversation? Are you still gonna let your partner overrule you?

Re: Judgement?
 

Designating an area as your "primary" area implies that it is also your partner's "secondary" (or tertiary) area. This is why it is not called your "sole" area.

The fact that you would be insulted by having your error corrected by your partner means that you should make this very clear in your pre-game. Just remember that your real primary responsibilty is to get the calls right, not just to look good.

[/b]

The fact that you would be insulted by having your <font color = red>error</font> corrected by your partner means that you should make this very clear in your pre-game. Just remember that your real primary responsibilty is to get the calls right, not just to look good. [/B][/QUOTE]That's the problem right there,Jim. What if Tony is sure that he didn't make an "error" of any kind, but instead was confident that he had the call RIGHT? I think that any official would be insulted under those circumstances if someone subsequently tried to overrule them. I sureashell would be, and I guarantee you that we WOULD be discussing it if somebody tried it with me.

Notwithstanding, of course, the fact that the rules as written will NOT allow one official to overrule another official anyway.

Re: Equal authority but different responsibilities.
 

OK, what is your point? I am not saying that you guess, I am saying you better know. Like the foot is completely over the line and you are possibly blocked or out of position (like being in transition). I know I would want the lead to let me know if on a fast break shot a 3 point shot. I might be guessing while he sees the play all the way. Is that the Lead's area? No it is not. Do they have a better look? More than likely they do if you ask me.

That is a really bad analogy if you ask me. That has nothing to do with what we actually see or can be seen on video. But if my job has the time set correctly to what my watch says, that time is the only one that matters if you ask me. Your watch is only a reference point. Not a very good comparison if you ask me. I got your point, but it does not apply to this discussion. ;)

If you think only one official has this responsibility, you need to go back and read the mechanics books of all the levels. Both the NF and the CCA mechanics books make it clear there are areas on the floor that two officials could very easily look at the same shot.

This is not a foul call. This is not even an out of bounds call or violation call. A 3 point shot is a different animal. If you feel a personal afront to that decision, I guess you have that right. But we can view video tape all day long about a change and sometimes not agree. Video tape can show a foot on the line or not with the right angle. I would rather go with a partner that knows his foot was on the line than try to hold on to some theory that I "worked hard to make that call."

I do not think anyone said they were overruling you. But if you want to be wrong, I will let you be wrong. Then I will tell the assignor that you insisted on being wrong. But if I had some coverage area, I am making a decision. I am not going down to burn for one 3 point call that you want to be stubborn about. Not sure why I have to have a long conversation with you to say, "I saw his foot was on the line." Oh well.

Well Tony, I think it is garbage that you think only one official has this call. But you have continued to state it despite what the mechanics cover. :rolleyes:

Peace

If an official stops the clock to change the points of 3 point attempt, I am going with his call. I do not consider that an over-rule, I call that "bailing my *** out." And if the tape does not prove it, my behind is off the hook.

Peace

$0.02

Always pre-game this situation..however, I must admit I would disagree ( doesnt mean I wouldnt follow it!) with the Fed procedure.

First, if it is even close and I am not in perfect position, I will wait a breif moment before I signal the try as a three and take a glance at the partner who may have been able to see if he was indeed behind the line. If one of my partners does this to me, I am now taking responsibility for the call, and signalling the try or pointing two towards the floor.

If I believe it is a three and get nothing back from my partner on the glance, I'm going up with the three. If I am not sure, I'm not making any definitive signals....and we move on with the game and the bucket counts for 2 ( which all field goals do unless you signal otherwise..although I have a few partners who INSIST on signaling two on every bucket..lol)

Now here is where I differ in the procedure. In the situation I just described above, if there is a question by ANYONE as to the points on that particular shot, my partners and I will discuss it during a normal stop in play...ie ball out of bounds, foul, etc. If, as the original scenario described in the post, I signal 3 and THEN my partner ( who better be 3,000% sure ) signals a two, my partner wins without discussion EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The two fingers pointing towards the floor is a definitive gesture signaling to EVERYONE that, although it was close, the shooter was not behind the 3 point shooting line. If one of your partners " changes your call " on this one, you roll with it, because if there is any disagreement, the call is now on his shoulders. That is ok, because you TRUST YOUR PARTNER that there was a reason he made the definitive signal.. and you get your a** in better position next time.

All of this can be done inside our lil world of officiating. without blowing your whistle and stopping play, and letting everyone else ( people like that Wildcat FanATIC I was reading about in past posts ) know that it is possible that one of us was out of position, or a completely blind idiot.

If you are that certain of the 3-point and your partner does this Dan ( is that who is arguing the point? ), wait until a timeout, come together, place your hand over your mouth, keep a straight face..... and rip his a** a new one. ( wait until halftime when applicable) Then move on with the game as if it never happened.

**IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO IMHO :) :) :) :) :) :)

Savaahn Ty

Re: Equal authority but different responsibilities.
 

Hey Tony, you went to the trouble of telling us exactly what the fed wants you to do with respect to 3 point coverage and still you can't find it within you to follow this simple directive issued by the fed?

How come?

Re: Re: Equal authority but different responsibilities.
 

I don't see any reason to think that my partner's perception of what occurred in my primary area is better than my perception. If I made the effort to be in position and fulfilled my responsibility to the officiating team why should my partner, who was not in the proper position to see the plays for which I am responsible, have the last opportunity to "correct me" - no rebuttal, no questions asked, no discussion, no nothing, except tell the world that I was wrong and he was right.

I don't like it. And I assume someone at Fedlandia dreamed it up because I have not seen it referenced to any rule or mechanics book.

Perhaps I'm just not used to having that caliber of partner. Don't know; but I don't like it.;)

Sorry you didn't get the watch analogy Jeff, I thought it was a great example of different perceptions and both parties thinking they were 100% correct. So, who do we synchronize our watches with now? :D

I thought this fell under the correctable error and can be changed at the first dead ball? Espcially if the dead ball happens shortly after the three. If we've gone some time i might ask my partner about that three - and if he doesnt say much about it I'll leave it at that. I dont ever overturn a call unless i've been asked for help.

Oops, sorry Dan....

Tony, look, you have to deal with it man.....

If you and I are officiating together, and in your primary you signal a three ( are in good position and everything ) and I happen to see that the shooters foot is on the line.... and I change signal ( two fingers to the floor is a definitive signal...bottom line ) to a two point shot... and we stop the game to argue it...you can be assured that the evaluator on the game is going to rip your a**, as well as me, as well as the assignor for the conference. And its not going to matter if you were right. Continue to act like this is similar situations, and you will find yourself removed from the conference. PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

Your partner definitively changes your call after you call/signal something...ROLL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Savaahn Ty

( Behave this way, and deal with the situation later, and in private... and the evaluator, then the conference assignor, will know that you are one who wants to get the call right and improve, but are willinig to be a team player. I guarantee that this will put you in position to be on a crew where your partners won't make these types of mistakes. The way you deal with adversity is important...and from the looks of it, you dont deal with it very well..I apologize for saying )



Your partner

Your partner is then the one who will be questioned for his call.

Re: Re: Re: Equal authority but different responsibilities.
 

You don't?!?! Your partner just stopped the game to tell you that your perception was off. You don't think that's a reason to think that your perception was off?

Your partner is not going to do that unless it's an obvious and definitive ruling. That is the reason to think that you missed it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Equal authority but different responsibilities.
 

Say what?

Your partner didn't tell you one damn thing, which is the problem. Your partner changed your call without bothering to discuss it with you at all. They would only do that once to me. And if I was evaluating, they'd also only do it once. It only takes 10 seconds to talk this one over- that's all.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 12th, 2004 at 11:58 PM]

Ty, I evaluate. If you ever changed a call that belonged to your partner without first discussing it with him, I guarantee you that you would never work another game for me. Plain and simply, if you'd do that you aren't a team player and you can't be trusted.

Wow, JR, I just flat-out disagree with this. We talk about this exact situation in pre-game. Together, we agree that we will trust the other's good sense in this situation. If you know that I missed the call, I don't need you to come pat me on the shoulder. Just tweet, say "TWO!" and I'll thank you for catching it when I was sleeping.

I think -- as long as we've all discussed it -- that is being a team player. I put my trust in you that you will save me from a mistake; but only when you are sure that it's a mistake.

Now, if we talk about it in pre-game and we decide that we'll get together to talk about it, that's a different story. But there's nothing really to talk about. If you're willing to put your credibility "on the line", pardon the pun, for that call then I consider that be ample evidence that I missed the call.

It is about trust; but I'm trusting you to use that power only when you have zero doubt that I made an error. As always, JMHO.

How can you possibly say that you trust my "good sense", Chuck, if you're gonna overrule me without even bothering to talk to me? What happens if I don't think that I actually did miss the call, but I had it right? That's the situation that bothers me. What you are actually saying here is that your judgement is better than mine. I may wanna disagree with that.

I have a really good solution.
 

Then you need to voice that kind of concern in the locker room, not wait until the situation happens. Then when this play comes up, I will let you burn because you do not want help.

No, I do not think that is what any of are saying. But if you feel that way then it will dictate what I do. I just will not make any of these types of decisions that will offend you. Problem solved. When the assignor asks me about why I did not help, I will state you made it clear that you did not want help on these kinds of plays. No harm, no foul.

Peace

I'm checking in here a little late, because I've been out having a life. But to me the biggest issue is what it does to my credibility if my partner just overrules me from across the floor. Even if I'm going to automatically change my call when he steps in and talks to me, I want the stepping in and the chance to change it myself. I've had partners overrule me from a distance, and I can tell you the rest of my game isn't worth the effort it would take to wipe it off the bottom of my shoes -- or at least, that's what everyone in the gym thinks. I might as well just go home.

Rainmaker, JR

The situation that you are talking about, in my viewpoint, would be a situation where you had an out of bounds call that was not the same as what I had. IN this instance, we need to come together.

( ON a side note, it almost seems as though both of you are under the notion that your area is your area, and you dont need nor want any help.. ever. To a point, I would agree. But as a strong official, I am absolutely NOT going to make the DEFINITIVE SIGNAL of two fingers towards the floor UNLESS I AM 3,000% SURE. I will also respectfully disagree that this makes me someone who is NOT a team player. )

But in the original post, the topic was a three-pointer... Not the changing of a call, not a difference of opinion in judgement.............I saw him on the line, and I want to get the call correct. But I am not going to stop the game for it. Perhaps if I was officiating in JR's conference, I would have to change this.....

However, having been in the situation where a partner changed my out of bounds call ( not really changed, just came up after I did with the ball going the other way..why he was looking at the line, I have no idea ).. we came together because I KNOW lead did not see it and was simply guessing, and we got the call right. However after talking to the evaluator, and discussing the situation with mentors and others, I was told the same thing time and again... if you partner is willing to come and change your call, roll with it because it is now on his shoulders.

Avoid this situation by a good pre-game, and the problem will be solved. :)

Can you order those from Honig's?

I agree that you must be absalutely sure before even getting together with you partner to discuss what you saw. If Partner 1 is not willing to get it right and Partner 2 doesn't want to hear it, then maybe we should call them individual 1 and 2. Nobody wants to get shown up in front of the whole gym, I think you lose more credibility when everyone else saw what you missed. There is a reason why the game requires more than 1 referee. The game is not about you or me, it's about getting it right. This should be properly pregamed and if it comes up, both 1 and 2 need to use proper tact, but get it right.

That's all I've got to say about that for now.

The fact is, tho, that you didn't have it right. Otherwise your partner wouldn't have blown the whistle.


Nah. I'm saying my view was better on that one play in that gray area. I'll still work with you tomorrow night.

Then you'd be wrong twice. The premise of this procedure is that you missed the call and it's obvious to your partner. If you accept that premise (viz., this will only happen when you inadvertantly make an obvious error), then I don't see the problem.

Beautiful. Absolutely classic! :)

1) I have never said anything like that or intimated anything like that anywhere. On the contrary, I fully agree with getting the call right and using your partner(s) help to do so. What I completely disagree with is an official that is not going to give his partner any HELP; he is just overruling his partner's call; and he could be going outside of his primary to do that also. Please don't make up inferences that aren't there just to try and make your own point.

2) Whatinthehell does being a "strong official" have to do with getting the correct call? Does that mean that your judgement is ALWAYS better than all of the weak mortals that you get stuck with? There's never any need to talk to them? Just change their call if you don't agree with it? My opinion of you is unchanged. Unfortunately.

3) Say what? You really need to go back and read the original post. The topic was an article called "CHANGING THE CALL"!!! The article said that you just CHANGE THE CALL by OVERRULING your partner WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION!!! You can get the call correct by simply taking 10 seconds to talk to your partner(s). What happens if both of your partners disagree with you? Does the "strong" official get 3 votes, and the other 2 shlubs only get 1 apiece? Btw, how do you know whether your partners agree with you unless you do talk to them?

Lah me.

PS- I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how they can ignore the very explicit language in both the NCAA and NFHS rulesets that states that you CAN'T change your partner's call.

Then you'd be wrong twice. The premise of this procedure is that you missed the call and it's obvious to your partner. If you accept that premise (viz., this will only happen when you inadvertantly make an obvious error), then I don't see the problem. [/B][/QUOTE]Nope, the premise of this procedure is that YOU think that I missed the call. I might think something that's completely different. And you won't know what I think because you're too busy overruling my call.

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. My ego isn't that big that I wouldn't admit that I mighta made a mistake. Unfortunately, you're not saying the same thing if you just overrule one of my calls without discussing it with me first.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 13th, 2004 at 09:23 AM]

Because NFHS tells you to do this in their pre-season Guide?
An interesting point. Where do the Officials Manual and Pre-season Guide come in the hierarchy of manuals?

The Officials Manual deems this a "help situation", which "should be discussed thoroughly during the crew's pregame conference, so there will be no surprises on the court," but mentions nothing about "Changing", as the Pre-season Guide terms it. The sections about Three-Point Tries specifically state that it is the responsibility of the official whose area the player is in to signal the three, and little else about the other officials.

JR,

You seem to be taking all of this a bit personally, so I apologize if you think I am attacking you, your viewpoint, or anything you said.

I was under the impression that we were all using this forum to discuss our viewpoints and situations to help us improve ourselves for the reasons of our choosing....not to attack one another and/or cut up every thing that we say.

That said, your viewpoint of me is irrelivant in this situation, I am not trying to prove MY point....I am giving my viewpoint and experience on the subject, please note I said " it seems ", as well as " a strong" and not " THE strong", and it was my understanding that the original post went something like " if one official signals a three-pointer, but another official is CERTAIN that the shooter was on or inside.." which is why I stated the original post was about a three-point attempt.

The way you are describing handling the situation and the way the Fed says to handle the situation are ways that I would exactly handle the situation if I was OVERRULING a call by my partner ( Call, in my opinion, would be something my partner blows his whistle on...ie, in my opinion, an out of bounds call...which I also stated ). The original post, if I remember correctly, is about one partner signaling a three, and another partner, BEING CERTAIN, signals a two.

I stated what my experiences and viewpoints were, and the reality that I or anyone else may who have simliar viepoints MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THAT VIEWPOINT depending on the conferences they officiate. I further stated that as " a strong official ", which I believe I am, I ( not everyone else, anyone else, or whomever else, but ME ME ME ) would not make the DEFINITIVE SIGNAL that the shooter was, in fact, on the line unless I was 3000% SURE, telling my partner I am sure I got this. I ALSO said that if my partner did this to me, I would trust him 100% and roll with his call....because this is the answer that I have been given time and again on the situation, and RESPECTFULLY disagreed that having this viewpoint made me an official who is NOT a team player....

and you break all of this down and attack me for it?

Interesting.

[/b]
I'm not sure why this is a point of contention between us. This whole conversation takes place in the context of the fact that one of us missed the call and it's obvious. We can yes, no, yes, no till March Madness. But the procedure is designed for a situation in which a call is missed and it's obvious to another official. That's the premise. The call was missed. If you reject that premise, that's fine. But then the point of the conversation changes and everything that I've written on the subject in this thread is moot.

Secondly, of course I think you missed the call. But on top of that, guess what? You actually did miss the call. Otherwise, I give you my solemn oath that I won't blow the whistle.


Of course that's what you think, otherwise you wouldn't have given the touchdown signal. But you know what? On that one play in that gray area in transition, your eyes tricked you. Badly. So badly that it's obvious to me.

And when you and I work together (hey, that would be fun! :) ), that's how we'll do it b/c you obviously feel strongly about it. But for most of my games, we pre-game it so that we don't need to huddle to get this particular call right. And I don't have a problem with that.

Chuck,
My philosphical difference is that when JR marked the three and I saw that it was wrong, then <U>I <I>think</I> I missed the call</U> unless he comes to me and asks. :cool:
mick

And when you and I work together (hey, that would be fun! :) ), that's how we'll do it b/c you obviously feel strongly about it. But for most of my games, we pre-game it so that we don't need to huddle to get this particular call right. And I don't have a problem with that.

[/B][/QUOTE]Chuck, that procedure is fine if the official who is getting his call corrected agrees that he mighta been wrong. 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. Is this how then you handle it?- I give the signal for a three. You stop the clock and signal a 2. Because we're not supposed to huddle and talk about it, I just remain where I was, blow my whistle again and signal a 3. Which you respond to by again blowing your whistle and signalling a 2, and so on..........

That whole procedure is based on the original calling official agreeing with you that his initial call was or may have been wrong. That procedure does not allow for the case where the original calling official is sure that he was right. Imo, there is no problem using BOTH procedures in a game- not getting together if the original calling official did have some doubts, but definitely getting together if both officials are confident that they each had the correct call-even if those calls differ. And if those calls DO differ and the original calling official doesn't want you to change his call, the rule book says that you CAN'T change his call.

Some more quotes from the rule book:
2-6 "No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties"

BUT

2-5-3 The referee shall "decide whether a goal shall count if the officials disagree"

Aren't these contradictory?

Not really. Deciding whether a goal shall count or not is listed within the R's respective outlined duties. Overruling another official's 2 0r 3-point call is not listed in ANYBODY's respective duties. You just can't do it.

This is how your crew is supposed to work!
http://www.sodamnfunny.com/Animation...guinsdance.gif

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!

Love it J.R. hahaha
 

that is perfect.... 5 pages and counting on disagreeing with each other on a 3...wow

That, JR, is a great crew !

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.

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.

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

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:
<OL><LI>I didn't see a foot on the line
<LI>I saw the foot on the line
</OL>

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).

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.

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.

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.

BINGO !!!
 

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

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.

The bottom line.
 

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

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

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.

My 2 cents
 

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

Re: My 2 cents
 

How do you really feel about it, goose? ;)
Welcome to the forum.
mick

Re: Sticks and stones...
 

Well, Goose, I just learned a whole bunch about you too. Anyone who disagrees with you is egotistical and pathetic. Well, I don't think that I've called anyone names so far in this thread, or dismissed their position out-of-hand as being "pathetic" either. If that's the sum contribution that you're gonna make to this Forum, you might as well disappear for another 18 years, imo.

Re: My 2 cents
 

Hmmm, I'm stumped, Goose. Drop me an email and reveal your secret identity! :)

Re: BINGO !!!
 

I'm left thinking you both have egos that are far too tender to be doing this type of work. I'm also left thinking someone who doesn't value each and every single point doesn't get the idea of this whole I-win-you-lose stuff.

And I'm also left wondering whatinthehell is the big deal. Some of us have used this system, it works for us, and a power-that-is happens to think this might be a good way for everyone to do it. I agree with him/her/it.

If you're too concerned about being showed up in front of the assembled masses then demand your 20 second huddle before you finally agree to change your mind. But make sure you do the demanding during the pregame. Or forever hold your peace.

Re: BINGO !!!
 

Tony -- I don't get it. Sorry. All I'm saying is that I don't need any help to look lousy. I do need a partner who wants us both to look good. This kind of overruling isn't accepted around here, and if someone does it, it makes both refs look ridiculous. That's just the perception. If we get together, and I change my call, that's teamwork and getting the call right. If my partner overrules me, we both lose any credibility we may have had. And after this thread, I'll be pre-gaming this every time.

Re: Re: BINGO !!!
 

With whom do you lose credibility with? The coach? The fans? The evaluators?

Peace

Re: Re: BINGO !!!
 

1) I'm left thinking you both have egos that are far too tender to be doing this type of work.


2) If you're too concerned about being showed up in front of the assembled masses then demand your 20 second huddle before you finally agree to change your mind. But make sure you do the demanding during the pregame. Or forever hold your peace.
[/B][/QUOTE]1) What about me? What about poor JR? If you cut me, don't I bleed also? What about MY tender ego? Huh?

2) You're missing the point too. It's got absolutely nothing to do with being shown up, or JR's poor little ego(even though I certainly do enjoy a l'il pat on the head every now and then- or my ears scratched). It's about saying that you HAVE to use a procedure, without exception, in situations that the procedure was never intended to be used in. It might be great for 99% of the cases that come up, but there might be that one case where the original calling official was completely sure that he had the call right. If that's the case, then I AIN'T gonna change my mind, or the call, if I'm that sure that I had it right. This procedure is great for any occasion where there might be the slightest doubt, but it's not meant to be used in situations where 2 officials plain and simply disagree about a call. In that case, if the official that made the original call is adamant that he really had nailed the call, then he shouldn't be overruled. And certainly he shouldn't have to put up with some dildo changing his call without having the common decency to even talk to him about it first. And, yes, you certainly can pre-game to use both procedures if necessary. Not hard to do at all.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 13th, 2004 at 06:53 PM]

Chuck & goose, I agree with your thoughts of not stopping the game for this one type of incident. You both explain it well.

to everyone else....What I dont see is anyone who agrees with this position of not stopping the clock when changing the SIGNAL to a two point try attacking someone who disagrees with it.

Interesting.

To everyone else....for those who may think that Goose was attacking anyone in particular for doing something another may be doing ( and please correct me if I am wrong here Goose ) .. in my opinion, he was giving you his perception of someones reaction to an opposing viewpoint, while GIVING US HIS EXPLANATION OF HIS VIEWPOINT AND EXPERIENCE.

Bye Bye everyone :)

Re: Re: Re: BINGO !!!
 

**** you, your ego and the horse you rode in on.

Quote:

2) You're missing the point too. It's got absolutely nothing to do with being shown up, or JR's poor little ego(even though I certainly do enjoy a l'il pat on the head every now and then- or my ears scratched). It's about saying that you HAVE to use a procedure, without exception, in situations that the procedure was never intended to....

I'll try again: if we pregame it this way then by definition the...dil...errr...the guy changing the call is correct and the non-dil...errr...the other guy is wrong.

No fuss no muss life goes on.

What about the horse his ego rode in on? :D