Confession: Toughest call....(4 Principles)

[Larks]

Good question by Larks btw- and a good discussion.

Good stuff guys thanks. In 5 years, this is the first secondary defender b/c that I can really remember. I probably had some others and either was too new to know what I was looking at or B) it wasnt so bang-bang.

Someone mentioned ball watching earlier in the thread and I dont totally agree. The play came around the corner (which is why I was closed down) and down the lane line so really it originated in the gray or maybe even C. I wasnt necessarily ball watching. I feel I was more drawn to the drive right down boradway. I bet if you answered honestly that when a defended drive is coming to the basket down the lane line right at you....how many look off for B2 EVERY TIME? If you answer ALWAYS, you are probably working the next level!

I like the thought of getting wide and probably could have / normally do now that I think of it.

I guess I just didnt or didnt enough because I have no idea how long B2 was there. All i know is he was flat footed and took that freight train better than most.

I could not get deeper from the court, this was one of those gyms that has about 4' of space from end line to wall on each end.

This is definately a split second judgment no matter how you cut it. I agree with the concept that you gotta have something. I agree that if I was wider, I may have caught B2 sliding or known 100% he was there.

As for T, I think it happened so fast and I whishtled / sold so fast, it would have been tough or VERY late. Good point on him seeing B2 if he is reffing A1/B1. C thought B2 was there but thats all the way across but if he is off ball, he may have really saw it and I am good.

Tape will tell us....IF I can actually get it. Tape in Ohio is a luxury.

Definately a learning experience.

Here goes.....50x....

Ref the D (But pick up the secondary D if the play originates outside your primary)
Ref the D (But pick up the secondary D if the play originates outside your primary)
Re....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Larks
[/B]

I could not get deeper from the court, this was one of those gyms that has about 4' of space from end line to wall on each end.

[/B][/QUOTE]That's an excellent point there too- about getting deeper on the endline at lead if you can. That automatically opens up more of what you can see in the area that you're tracking.

[Rick82358]

Rookie, you mentioned that you closed down on the play but got wiped out by the players OOB?
We were taught (OH) as youclose down to the lane you move back away from the baseline, this maintains a broader view of the primary area so that you can get both the play coming at you and the secondary defenders, you then referee below the net.
This might help you be further off the baseline next time.
Just a suggestion.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by Larks
I like the thought of getting wide and probably could have / normally do now that I think of it.

The only reason I mentioned this is because normally, if you're at close-down, you don't want to stay there too long. Either you're going or you're backing off.

Even if you'd just arrived at the close-down position, once you see someone driving the lane, back yourself outta there pronto - that potential for B2 to enter play is exactly the reason for this. You want to be able to see the ENTIRE key, and the only way to do this is to go wide again. Even backing off the baseline doesn't give you a good enough look IMO.

Originally posted by Larks
Someone mentioned ball watching earlier in the thread and I dont totally agree. The play came around the corner (which is why I was closed down) and down the lane line so really it originated in the gray or maybe even C. I wasnt necessarily ball watching. I feel I was more drawn to the drive right down boradway. I bet if you answered honestly that when a defended drive is coming to the basket down the lane line right at you....how many look off for B2 EVERY TIME? If you answer ALWAYS, you are probably working the next level!

I don't think the problem was so much ball-watching as it was not having those "wide eyes" the clinicians and evaluators are always talking about. Absolutely you should be focusing on the secondaries, while still having the primary in your vision - it's the proper 3-person mechanic. But if you don't have the view, you just CAN'T see the whole play.

Anyway, stop chanting. It's a small thing. It happened during a big play, but it's only one thing. Chalk it up, pregame it next time, and go get 'em!

[Back In The Saddle]

If this play originated from the T/C area, then to me it becomes more difficult to accept your partners' opinions on this call. One or both of them should have been watching the matchup between A1 and B1. That would make it more difficult for them to really know whether B2 had position or not. I could be wrong, they had a much wider angle. But if it was that close it seems they would have had to be watching B2 before A1 got past B1 in order to know for sure. And it sounds to me like they shouldn't have been.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by tomegun

Do you mean this literally or figuratively?

If literally, there are many ways you can go wrong if ALL you are doing is reffing the D.

Reffing the D is solely about evaluating contact. It was and never has been about evaluating violation (travel, carry, etc.)

If the D has done nothing to cause the foul and there is sufficient contact for a foul, you're left with an offensive foul. Said another way...you can always tell who the foul should be on if you watch the D but you can rarely tell (correctly) if you're watching the O.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Reffing the D is solely about evaluating contact. It was and never has been about evaluating violation (travel, carry, etc.)

If the D has done nothing to cause the foul and there is sufficient contact for a foul, you're left with an offensive foul. Said another way...you can always tell who the foul should be on if you watch the D but you can rarely tell (correctly) if you're watching the O.

And, if you tell someone young to ref the D they may take you literally. This could cause tunnel vision and COULD result in missed violations, by the offense and other things. If you noticed earlier posts, I'm not saying reffing the D isn't important; I'm saying reffing the matchup could open us up to see other things. Like it was said earlier, if you are already at a place where you see the matchup, what I'm saying isn't for you. However, someone else could take reffing the D literally and miss other things.

[blindzebra]

The best way to help an inexperienced official is to qualify or completely change the phrase to, "Find the defender and see through the play."

For me that subtle change, puts them closer to what really seeing the play means.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
If this play originated from the T/C area, then to me it becomes more difficult to accept your partners' opinions on this call. One or both of them should have been watching the matchup between A1 and B1. That would make it more difficult for them to really know whether B2 had position or not. I could be wrong, they had a much wider angle. But if it was that close it seems they would have had to be watching B2 before A1 got past B1 in order to know for sure. And it sounds to me like they shouldn't have been.

The way Larks described it, it sounds like the play originated from C, otherwise he wouldn't have been in close-down. I actually think T might have had a decent look at whether B2 slid in or not, depending on how crowded it was in the paint.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by canuckrefguy

The way Larks described it, it sounds like the play originated from C, otherwise he wouldn't have been in close-down. I actually think T might have had a decent look at whether B2 slid in or not, depending on how crowded it was in the paint.

It sounded like it came from the top down the nearer lane line to me, so that is trail's primary.

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by blindzebra

It sounded like it came from the top down the nearer lane line to me, so that is trail's primary.

On second look, it does appear as if dribbler is coming down the lane line on L's side.

Question isn't about primary - secondary defender was Larks' call all the way. Question seems to be about vision and positioning.

Regardless, I think we've discussed everything by now.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by blindzebra
The best way to help an inexperienced official is to qualify or completely change the phrase to, "Find the defender and see through the play."

For me that subtle change, puts them closer to what really seeing the play means.

I get a kick out of this; I think some things are indicative of a strong official, which is a good thing.

Why isn't the best way to tell a younger official to watch the matchup, which will include offensive player (with the ball), defensive player and any possible screeners? When we (officials in general) talk about these sorts of things, we could be discussing the L off-ball the comment will be made to watch the next competitive ______________________. If you fill in the blank, it sure won't be "find the defender and see through the play." It will be (the next competitive) "matchup." We should know who our defenders are and what they are doing, but we watch the matchup because the offensive player could do something too. In reality it isn't, and shouldn't be, much different if one of the two players happens to have the ball. We do it all the time; if a break occurs, with a one-on-one situation, and A1 travels, how do we see it to call it? Because we are watching the matchup! If and when A1 begins the shooting motion on this play, we go to the defender to see the play through. The same thing could be said of a play where A1 is close to, but behind, the 3-point line and gets fouled in the act; the foul was called because we watch the defense but we determined it was a 3-point attempt because we located the offense OR because we just reffed the matchup. These are plays that happen all the time, so why all this reluctance to call it what it really is (and what describes it more accurately)? This is almost like saying we have to ref the defense and "this that and the other" as opposed to saying we have to ref the matchup, which includes reffing the defense and "this that and the other." It is like JR pointed out in a post (split seconds before me earlier ), if this discussion helps one official understand and get better, that is the important thing.

[Edited by tomegun on Dec 28th, 2005 at 03:46 PM]

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by tomegun

I get a kick out of this; I think some things are indicative of a strong official, which is a good thing.

Why isn't the best way to tell a younger official to watch the matchup, which will include offensive player (with the ball), defensive player and any possible screeners? When we (officials in general) talk about these sorts of things, we could be discussing the L off-ball the comment will be made to watch the next competitive ______________________. If you fill in the blank, it sure won't be "find the defender and see through the play." It will be (the next competitive) "matchup." We should know who our defenders are and what they are doing, but we watch the matchup because the offensive player could do something too. In reality it isn't, and shouldn't be, much different if one of the two players happens to have the ball. We do it all the time; if a break occurs, with a one-on-one situation, and A1 travels, how do we see it to call it? Because we are watching the matchup! If and when A1 begins the shooting motion on this play, we go to the defender to see the play through. The same thing could be said of a play where A1 is close to, but behind, the 3-point line and gets fouled in the act; the foul was called because we watch the defense but we determined it was a 3-point attempt because we located the offense OR because we just reffed the matchup. These are plays that happen all the time, so why all this reluctance to call it what it really is (and what describes it more accurately)? This is almost like saying we have to ref the defense and "this that and the other" as opposed to saying we have to ref the matchup, which includes reffing the defense and "this that and the other."

Is matchup any clearer in reality?

Any philosophy based on descriptive terms or catch phrases run the risk of being taken literally.

Matchup just has a slightly wider "tunnel vision" than ref the defense, it does not mean when they take it literally and focus on those two players that they don't miss a lot going on around it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Is matchup any clearer in reality?

Any philosophy based on descriptive terms or catch phrases run the risk of being taken literally.

Matchup just has a slightly wider "tunnel vision" than ref the defense, it does not mean when they take it literally and focus on those two players that they don't miss a lot going on around it.

I think that you guys are both saying exactly the same thing, but in slightly different ways.

Me three btw.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by Rick82358
Rookie, you mentioned that you closed down on the play but got wiped out by the players OOB?
We were taught (OH) as youclose down to the lane you move back away from the baseline, this maintains a broader view of the primary area so that you can get both the play coming at you and the secondary defenders, you then referee below the net.
This might help you be further off the baseline next time.
Just a suggestion.

Yup...I was probably to close to the endline, as I mentioned earlier.
Good catch and good suggestion.