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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

GASP!!

Jullie said A#$%!!!

http://www.tekmonki.com/wp-content/i...00-shocked.jpg

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.

Right!

Somebody has to make a final decision, no matter <b>what</b> 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.

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 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!

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]

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?

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 <b>any</b> 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.

If I'm a lot junior and I'm not the R, then I may have to back down, but I will let him know that he's hanging himself. I'm not going to sell him out to the coach, but I'm not sticking up for him, either.

JR, I hate to say this, but I think you're still missing the boat here. Nobody's talking about over-ruling a call. We're talking about administration/enforcement after a correct call.

Thank you, Chuck. I cannot seem to get across the point penalty administration differs tremendously from the actual call on the floor. There is no way on God's Green Earth that the rule book or a supervisor/evaluator would intend for the incorrect administration of a penalty to occur simply beacuse one crew member stuubornly refuses to listen to reason, despite complete and accurate knowledge to the contrary by the rest of the crew. Now, I understand the possibility exists that stubborn person might actually be the referee of the game, but as I said, if he/she is the referee, there will be consequences if they are incorrect. With that said, as the R in a crew, I may screw something up in my game, but it sure as heck won't be a failure to change an error in penalty administration because of an obstinate crew member.

Chuck, the enforcement is <b>part</b> of the call. You can't overrule that part of the call either if the calling official doesn't wanna be overruled. The calling official may be wrong as hell, but that's his problem if he's not gonna listen to his partner(s) and enforce it correctly. You just tell him what you think. If he still ain't gonna listen to you, then what exactly are you then gonna do? Have a big argument or fight out on the court? The bottom line is that if the calling official is absolutely sure that he's enforcing it correctly, then you can't overrule him. If he doesn't wanna give up the call, you can't make him- no matter how wrong he is. You sort it out after the game. Whoever was right is gonna be the survivor ultimately anyway.

Oh, don't worry, the supervisor/evaluator will take care of it. If the official is that dumb and stubborn, then he's probably done his last game at that level for a while. Meanwhile, jmo but I really don't think that a supervisor/evaluator wants to see his officiating crew having a major argument amongst themselves out on the floor- and holding up the game while they do so. Especially when the calling official is still adamantly insisting that he's got the call right.

I think that you people might be forgetting what this one was all about from the start. You've got an official here that's telling his partner "I don't care what you say. I'm right and you're wrong". Now you aren't gonna change his mind. And I think that you're both gonna look awful stoopid telling the table two completely different things. So, when it gets this bad, you really don't have any choice but to let your partner hang himself.

Nope, I'm just not buying that at all. I can't see any reason at all for saying that. You have an infraction and a penalty. You can correctly indicate the infraction and incorrectly administer the penalty. I just don't see that they must be treated as the same "call".

I will just say again that if I'm the R and we're not supposed to shoot FTs, then we're not shooting FTs period.

And if we do shoot the 1-and-1, I'm going to be looking very closely for an offensive lane violation . . .

I've been told the PC way to handle this is to say something like "for the record I think we should do...."

Now, if someone wants to come to me before I report and get me to change something I will change it if I feel like it is correct. Otherwise I have been known to let an idiot that didn't blow a whistle go report something they didn't have in the first place. :D Ridiculous but true.

If I'm the R I hope I'm not working with two pushovers that will just allow me to tell them what we are going to do. I would ask both what they think and say what I think. Hopefully we could come to an agreement. Telling them what we are going to do could have a negative effect on their game from that point on. It shouldn't be that way but it is.

Whatinthe hell difference does it make what verbiage you use? Does it really matter whether you're trying to overrule a screwed-up "infraction" or a screwed up "penalty"? Lah me! I'm saying that you can't overrule <b>either</b> if the calling official doesn't want to be overruled and refuses to be overruled.

In this play, you're telling your partner "I'm overruling your call!". Your partner now tells you "Like F**K you are!". When he's completely adamant out on the floor that his call is right, there's nothing else you can do but tell him that he's hanging himself and then go with him.

Play: Your partner's administering a throw-in. Defender reaches over the OOB line and knocks the ball out of the thrower's hands. Your partner says "delay of game"(proper call) and then tells the scorer to put a team warning in the book. You say "Whoa, that's a T". Partner says "Nope, you're fulla sh*t". You're telling me, Chuck, that your call is gonna end up prevailing- even though it may be completely 110%(:D) right- if your partner(the calling official) absolutely refuses to change his call? How you gonna do that? Karate-chop him unconscious and <b>then</b> change his call?

Chuck, I know exactly what you're trying to say. All I'm trying to say is that you're in a completely unique situation here- one where crew unity has already gone right down the ol' sh*tter. If you happen to run into someone that dumb and hardheaded, you're better to "oh well" it and get the game out of way asap--and deal with it after the game--rather than have a screaming match out on the floor between your partner and yourself.

Look, you're saying 2-6 applies. And all I'm saying is that it doesn't. We're not talking about a call.

Yes, it obvious does matter. Say my partner calls a travel on a borderline jumpstop. I'm not going to run in and tell my partner, "Hey, that wasn't really a travel". But if he says, "Travel! 2 shots!", you better believe I'm going to go to him and set him straight. There is a HUGE difference between the call and the enforcement.

I don't know. If crew unity is already gone, wouldn't it be better to get it right?

You know, this isn't a bad solution. I might just administer the FT so that he catches it outside the semi-circle.

qq]http://www.multiplex-sindelfingen.de/pix/popcorn.jpgqq

Here's where we're having our failure to communicate.

True. I agree completely with what you've said and what you're doing.

But.... you still haven't extrapolated it far enough. Now whatinthehell do you do when you've just set him straight and he <b>still</b> says "Chuck, you're wrong. It's my call and I'm giving him 2 shots"? Or in the example that I used before, he says "Chuck you're wrong. I'm not giving 2 shots for a delay-of-game T. I'm giving them an official warning instead". What do you do when the calling official is absolutely adamant that he was right and also absolutely adamant that he ain't gonna change his call? Are you just gonna sit there trading "you're right- you're wrong"s with him until the sun cools and the earth collapses in on itself? Somewhere along the line you just gotta give in and whisper to the guy "Listen MOFO, we'll go with your call and after the game we'll see who's right. Winner gets to referee again some time".

That's the point I'm trying to make. You just can't stand out there arguing with the moron for any real appreciable amount of time. If he really, really wants to hang himself, you can't stop him.

I will just say again that if I'm the R and we're not supposed to shoot FTs, then we're not shooting FTs period.[/Quote]

If I may sneak in here between the popcorn eating...

Chuck, I'd be willing to bet my last FOX 40 that even if you were not the R, and FTs were not suppose to be shot, you wouldn't let it happen. That's because you are confident and know the rules. In every crew there is usually a stronger (even if it's just perceived) official...and that official isn't always the R. In my experiences, that official will probably "get his/her way" in a dispute...R or not...because the other official(s) will "give in". (Probably better stated as "concede" untill the locker room)

What you guys are discussing is two hard headed officials that will not give an inch. This is going to be very rare indeed...becuase any official that knows anything, knows this looks terrible.

What you have here is a "filibuster" and it's happening right on the court...now you need a "nuclear option".

I'm going with JR's "nuclear option"...the guy that makes the call, and is continuing into the administration of the call, gets the "nucelar option"...he/she gets to blow the other official(s) out of the water and do it his/her way.

Again, this option is only used if you absolutely cannot change the other officials mind...and as JR stated, there is a rule to back this option.

What you guys are discussing is two hard headed officials that will not give an inch. This is going to be very rare indeed...becuase any official that knows anything, knows this looks terrible.

What you have here is a "filibuster" and it's happening right on the court...now you need a "nuclear option".

I'm going with JR's "nuclear option"...the guy that makes the call, and is continuing into the administration of the call, gets the "nuclear option"...he/she gets to blow the other official(s) out of the water and do it his/her way.

Again, this option is only used if you absolutely cannot change the other officials mind...and as JR stated, there is a rule to back this option. [/B][/QUOTE]Yup, that's basically all that I've been saying. I can't think of any other option being available if the calling official tells you to go screw yourself when you tell him he needs to change his call.

I could see doing something like this could, in rare instances, work out. But in this example, where a hard-headed ref is having A shoot 1-and-1 when they should get the ball OOB, your fix of the violation would give the ball to B, and A completely loses a posession. So, maybe in this case two wrongs really don't make a right?

To each his own, chances are it'll never happen, but I sure as hell won't use a flawed, parsed reading of the rules to fix an obvious mistake in penalty administration if I'm the R. Can't argue it any more, since it's obvious no one's mind is going to be changed.

Well, that's easy enough. Simply cite an unflawed, unparsed rule that will back up what you're planning to do as the R when you try to overrule your partner's call. Then we can close this thread down as being solved and go onto another topic.:rolleyes:

Can you imagine what the rest of the game would be like when the cape-wearing "R" swoops in to "fix" the mistake which his jaunty side-kick is making, even though said side-kick is every bit as adamant that it not be "fixed"...what a disaster!

For what it's worth, my supervisor backs me up on the interpretation. I'm the last thing from a cocky, my way or the highway ref, but I just think you guys are missing the point here, just as you don't get my point of view. Doesn't make either one of us less of an official. Let it go...

#1) I do get your point...and in 99.999% of all cases, a simple reminder to your partner is all it takes. However, we aren't talking about those 99.999%...we're talking about the one-in-a-whateverbignumberyouwanttopick time when your partner, altho wrong, will not back down...and you still haven't given us a viable way to deal with that. JR and I have...and that's where the point is being missed.

#2)Never even had a thought that anyone was "less of an official"...not sure why you would even bring something like that up.