This happened several years ago. Something I was reading today reminded me of the sitch.

The game was no big deal. It was JV, not a tournament, neither the league leading teams, nor the worst in town. No big deal.

If I remember correctly, it was the third quarter. I called something involving free throws. I announced what would happen next, and my partner came over and told me that I was wrong, we should do thus and so. I was glad that he did this instead of just overruling me, but I knew he was wrong. I don't remember what the details were, but I do remember that he wouldn't change his mind. I thought about what he said, and then said, no we would do it this way. He insisted on his way. And he wouldn't give up. It went on about 30 to 45 seconds. I finally said, "It's my call, and we're doing it my way" and I walked away. To give him credit, he didn't sulk through the game or anything childish like that. But our credibility was shot!

To top it off, we were being evaluated. This figured large in both our write-ups, as you can imagine.

So here are the questions. Should I have turned and walked away earlier? Of course, he should have quit sooner, but since he didn't, was there anyway to handle this more gracefully than I did?

Sounds like one of those situations where you do have to be forceful and say, "This is what I saw, I'm going to stay with my call and we'll talk about it after the game."

I've always believed that long conferences look terrible and if it wasn't a controversial call, then what's the point?

I think you did the right thing by going with your call. What did your evaluators say when you posed the situation to them afterwards? Did they agree with your call or did they think you should've gone with your partner's?

There's no question that I was right. (Is there ever?!?!) Evaluator was unhappy with how long it took, regardless of who was right. He thought I should have capitulated earlier and done it my partner's way, even though he was wrong. He agreed with you that long conferences look terrible.

Did your parner have a whistle?

I think you should have cut the conversation short and went with what you had. This is one of those situations where our internal clock should go off telling us we have crossed over into an area where we look bad.

An evaluator told you this? Are you kidding me? What credible evaluator would actually tell an official to purposely do something wrong, not covered by the rules, etc? Juulie, I think that you did fine here. Yea, the conference looked bad because it took long and probably people could see you were disagreeing. But ultimately, you got the call right and that's what matters.

Along the same lines, I know that for some people in the era of "getting it right," they don't care how long the conference takes just as long as the call is made correctly and executed in like manner. Take the job that Jim Burr did in the Elite 8 Kentucky game with the 3-point shot. He and his crew took 5 minutes, but ultimately got the call right (at least in some people's views..shall we talk about pixels again? :D)

Are you talking about something that was called at the buzzer? If they go to video and such that is a whole different type of situation.

Also, I do not like the "just get it right" mentality because that seems to give people license to do things they shouldn't do like looking all over the court to "help" their partner "just get it right." A long conversation would not have been needed it this other guy would have trusted his partner. It didn't seem to be a situation at the end of the game or a situation where she was asking for help so he should have left it alone a lot sooner. IMO :)

Tomegun,

I agree with you. I was just simply stating that there are some officials/supervisors today that want to see the call made right no matter what the delay. I was just using the Burr sitch as the extreme example. Still though, I just can't believe that a supervisor would tell Juulie to make the "wrong" call just to appease partner and move on w/ the game.

Was your evaluator French? This may explain why he advocated appeasment and capitulation?

I'm not so sure we should give up on getting right just to avoid giving some officials an excuse to look outside their area. Should we ban all cars because some people use them wrong? I think getting it right is the bottom line - the whole reason we're out there. Now, that being said, there are proper ways of getting it right, and procedures that are just as important. Staying in your primary is important. Trusting your partner is important. Keeping your credibility as individuals and as a crew are important as well. If I see something my partner missed, say an OOB call, and I'm 100% sure, I will give them that info. It's up to them whether they use it or not; I'm not going to stand there and argue with them. Conversely, if my partner comes to me and gives me info, then I will most likely use that info, because I know they wouldn't be coming to me unless they were 100% sure. That's a part of trusting your partner, just as much as letting him/her call their area. No big discussions and confabs. This is all discussed in pre-game: don't come to me unless you're 100% sure, and I'm the only one who doesn't know I got it wrong. In rainmaker's case, because it wasn't an end-of-game situation, and the partner was insistant, go with it and let the partner get dinged for giving wrong info. The long discussion in that situation does look bad overall for the crew. But that's a good point to add to the pre-game discussion list.

I read Juulie's post a little different than several of you seem to be doing.

It sounds like the partner didn't disagree with the call but the enforcement. So, it was not a matter of judgement but a matter of rules. Still, the long conference about it is a problem but it's not about looking in your partner's area or trusting their judgement.

A 45 second huddle is crazy in all but the most extreme situations. Someone should have stepped up & taken control of the sitch after a few seconds of discussion and ended the huddle. In your play you were right to not back down IMO but you should have just ended the huddle once he explained his position and you decided he was wrong. No need to be a jerk about it - a wink & a smile, "trust me here pard" and walk away.

Yea, 20/20 hindsight says the same. I was so green and so worried about pleasing everyone -- I ended up pleasing no one. Since then I've been working on Padgett's attitude -- What, Me Worry?

PS Camron -- you're right, it was about enforcement, not judgment.

I agree it wasn't about a call as well, but it is still about trusting your partner. I think it applies to trusting your partner on rules as well as calls. I think we all agree this partner did the wrong thing by insisting on the wrong enforcement. He should've trusted his partner's call, and enforcement. He could come in and give his information, but then let Juulie make her call. I think her question had more to do with what should she do if he continues to make an issue of it instead of letting it go like he should've. I think Dan's idea of the wink and "Let's go with mine" is good way to try and get out of it, but if he continues to insist, then say, "Fine, let's do it your way" and throw the book at him (perhaps literally as well as figuratively) at the end of the game. But keep the conferences to a minimum.

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

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.