Exhumed Question from the Dead File

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I thought Padgett's attitude was "Not without fishnets I won't".

Actually - my attitude is: "I realize we disagree but there's a simple explanation for that. You're wrong."

It works with everyone except my wife. With her, it's kind of the other way around.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes
Evaluator is an idiot.
It all comes down to who was the R. Then when you talk to the evaluator blame the mistake on the R.

Can't agree. It comes down to who made the original call. It's their call, and their call only to change. The R doesn't have the power to change another official's call.

The person who made the original call should be in charge of the situation. It's up to him/her to decide whether to stick with their call or change it. And it's up to the person offering their view/input to accept what the calling official eventually wants to go with.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The person who made the original call should be in charge of the situation. It's up to him/her to decide whether to stick with their call or change it.

That's true, JR, but it doesn't apply here. This isn't about disagreeing with a call. This is about how to enforce the penalty.

For example, next season, you may be working with somebody who forgets about the team control foul rule. You call an illegal screen and tell your partner where the designated spot for the throw-in is. Your partner then comes to you and insists that you should shoot 1-and-1. There's no question about the foul; just about what should happen next.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I thought Padgett's attitude was "Not without fishnets I won't".

Yea, I tried to get by with a soft euphemism, and it didn't work. His real attitude is (digging deep to find the inner grouch), "I'm just a $%#@ @$++*&% who doesn't give a Rat's A#$% what anyone thinks of me." That's a direct quote. Except I'm not sure I spelled $%#@ correctly. It's not a word I use very often.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

That's true, JR, but it doesn't apply here. This isn't about disagreeing with a call. This is about how to enforce the penalty.

For example, next season, you may be working with somebody who forgets about the team control foul rule. You call an illegal screen and tell your partner where the designated spot for the throw-in is. Your partner then comes to you and insists that you should shoot 1-and-1. There's no question about the foul; just about what should happen next.

JR's point still applies - it's the calling officials decision. If my partner comes to me with that info., I say "Thanks. but we're going right there." And away we go...not going to stand around and have a big, long discussion of what we should do next...

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[JR's point still applies - it's the calling officials decision. If my partner comes to me with that info., I say "Thanks. but we're going right there."

Ok, turn it around, then and the calling official wants to shoot 1-and-1 on a team control foul. You're going to let it go when he says, "They're over the limit, we're shooting!"? I don't think so.

[Dan_ref]

GASP!!

Jullie said A#$%!!!

[ShadowStripes]

Agree with snake eyes, if this happens, the R ends the debate, makes the final call, and lives or dies with it. This is not overturning or overruling a call on the court, it is a disagreement on the administration. And, while it should never happen, this is why you designate the an R; so they can make the final decision in these cases.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad

JR's point still applies - it's the calling officials decision. If my partner comes to me with that info., I say "Thanks. but we're going right there." And away we go...not going to stand around and have a big, long discussion of what we should do next...

Right!

Somebody has to make a final decision, no matter what the circumstances are. The only somebody that can make that final decision is the official who made the original call. And that somebody that made that final decision is the one who is gonna have to live or die with the decision that they end up making. Which is the way it should be. That way the evaluator knows that's s/he's screaming at the right person if the call does end up being screwed up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ShadowStripes
Agree with snake eyes, if this happens, the R ends the debate, makes the final call, and lives or dies with it. This is not overturning or overruling a call on the court, it is a disagreement on the administration. And, while it should never happen, this is why you designate the an R; so they can make the final decision in these cases.

So......you're suggesting that we just ignore rule 2-6? Got a rule citation that says it's OK for you to do that- when the evaluator asks you about it later?

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, turn it around, then and the calling official wants to shoot 1-and-1 on a team control foul. You're going to let it go when he says, "They're over the limit, we're shooting!"? I don't think so.

I will run over there, remind them quickly of the new rule, and if they are adamant about it - then we're gonna shoot 1 + 1...we will, of course, have an interesting talk in the lockerroom afterwards...the point is, the court is NOT the place to have a long, drawn-out discussion about something like this!

[ShadowStripes]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

So......you're suggesting that we just ignore rule 2-6? Got a rule citation that says it's OK for you to do that- when the evaluator asks you about it later?

I'm all for getting it right, but I disagree with your parsing of the rules. The rules are written to keep me from coming over and overturning my partner's call becuase he called a charge and I thought it was a block. When there is a disagreement in the administration of a penalty, the crew should get together briefly, and if there continues to be a disagreement, the referee should make the final decision. You should absolutely not simply go with the calling official's administration if it is wrong. Again, that is why you have a referee and umpire(s). And, if the referee happens to be the one who called it wrong initially and then refuses to change upon the advice of his/her partner(s), then the blame rests squarely on the R's shoulders. I'm quite comfortable explaining that position to an evaluator, and dare say that most reasonable minded evaluators would agree that is the most appropraite method of handling a situation that should never occur. But, if you want to cite Rule 2-6 as the end-all, be-all, unequivocal reason why we should stick with a misapplication of the rules, regardless if the R and the U1 disagree with the way the U2 screws it up, go right ahead. How are you going to explain that to an evaluator? "Well, we all knew it was wrong, but Rule 2-6 keeps us from changing a misapplication of the administration." Sorry, I don't see the evaluator buying that argument, either.

[Edited by ShadowStripes on May 26th, 2005 at 03:57 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rockyroad

I will run over there, remind them quickly of the new rule, and if they are adamant about it - then we're gonna shoot 1 + 1...

It would be very hard for me to walk away from this and shoot 1-and-1, especially if it's a close game. Especially if I'm the R. If I'm the R, we're not shooting FTs, period. I can't see how knowingly shooting unmerited FTs enhances our credibility.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
It would be very hard for me to walk away from this and shoot 1-and-1, especially if it's a close game. Especially if I'm the R. If I'm the R, we're not shooting FTs, period. I can't see how knowingly shooting unmerited FTs enhances our credibility.

But what if, like in Juulie's case, your partner is just as adamant? How do you handle it if you're the "junior" of the crew, and your partner is the R? This may be a case where her partner might have a few more years of "experience", and he knows in his mind he is right and is just trying to keep her from making a mistake. I think we've determined having a long discussion is not a good idea, but how long do you present your point before giving in? Or, in this case, since you know you are 100% right, do you stick to your guns, no matter how long it takes?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ShadowStripes

I'm all for getting it right, but I disagree with your parsing of the rules. The rules are written to keep me from coming over and overturning my partner's call becuase he called a charge and I thought it was a block. When there is a disagreement in the administration of a penalty, the crew should get together briefly, and if there continues to be a disagreement, the referee should make the final decision. You should absolutely not simply go with the calling official's administration if it is wrong. Again, that is why you have a referee and umpire(s). And, if the referee happens to be the one who called it wrong initially and then refuses to change upon the advice of his/her partner(s), then the blame rests squarely on the R's shoulders. I'm quite comfortable explaining that position to an evaluator, and dare say that most reasonable minded evaluators would agree that is the most appropraite method of handling a situation that should never occur. But, if you want to cite Rule 2-6 as the end-all, be-all, unequivocal reason why we should stick with a misapplication of the rules, regardless if the R and the U1 disagree with the way the U2 screws it up, go right ahead. How are you going to explain that to an evaluator? "Well, we all knew it was wrong, but Rule 2-6 keeps us from changing a misapplication of the administration." Sorry, I don't see the evaluator buying that argument, either.

If the calling official still absolutely insists that they made the correct call,you're telling me that you're still gonna overrule them on the floor anyway? If you're a very experienced U1 who just made a call that you're sure that you got right, and a fairly inexperienced R comes running in and says "hey, you're wrong" and is going to change your call, you're just gonna say "be my guest"?

O-kay.

There is no rules basis or mechanism-in NCAA or FED rules- that will allow any official to overrule another official if that official doesn't wanna be overruled. Whether the calling official happens to be right or wrong isn't really a factor either. Yes, you can do your best to change your partner's mind, but if they don't wanna listen to you, then you just gotta go with their call.