I have a new appreciation for block / charge as it relates to one of the 4 principles (Ref the D). Last week, I had what was possibly the toughest block / charge call I have ever had.

I was L, closed down table side. I pick up activity nr. the FT line extended. A1 is driving right down the lane line, right at me and being guarded by B1. A1 blows by B1 and leaps towards the goal. I open up and see B2 standing there like he'd been there all week. Bam, torso contact, huge crash. I immediately comeout Charge / Player Control. Huge call. 3:00 to go. A is making a run to get back in the game only down 4. All H E double tooth pic breaks loose.

Here's the rub...A's coach suggested B2 slid in AFTER A was airborne. Being 100% honest, I had no idea how long B2 was there because the distraction of the dribble drive right at me caused my vision to narrow. Here is how close this was: C said great call, charge all the way. T said he slid in, Block. No way T could have double whistled to possibly save my a$$, I was selling charge to whoever was buyin.

So I am telling a mentor about this play today and what did he say that hit me like a slap in the face: You have to ref the Defense.

It's so basic but there it is. Ref the D.

Ever notice that sometimes when you really feel like you have a handle on things, maybe have a little spring in your step and a play like this one will jump up and bite you?

Heck, I could have been right and it was a charge but having the time to reflect, I now dont know. If I get the tape, I guess I'll find out.

And thats why I have come in today Father.....now how many Our Fathers and Hail Mary's do I need to do again?

Actually, can I opt for the writing the 4 principles out 100x on the black board?

Don't be too hard on yourself. A lot of B/C calls are so razor close. Sounds like you did just fine and since B2 was a secondary defender, that was your call.

But yes, reffing the defense is the key to getting the B/C correct. Also, a good habit for the lead on a drive is to back out from close-down to wide-angle. It's tougher to make the right B/C charge when it's right on top of you. You wouldn't have had to open up because you would have been watching the whole thing at a 45-degree angle.

No Hail Mary's necessary. :)

Z

If I'm getting the description correctly the drive started in trail's primary, so your focus should be on the "help" defender and not the "on ball" defender.

Sometimes reffing the defense means finding the right defender, sounds like you got the wrong one.

Larks -- I've been here way more times than I can count. Not on B/C, but on alots of other things.

If it was just the coach that thought it was a bad call, I wouldn't worry much. The T saying so is another matter, but for the C to think it was a good call means it was probably close enough that you don't need to lay awake nights worrying about it.

Take your mentor's advice to the bank, and skip the Hail Marys. Write "Ref the Defense" 50 times in your reffing journal, and donate 5 games of community service (meaning 3rd graders). Then throw the willow wands (tools of self-flagellation) into the fire and curl up with a nicely laced eggnog, and your favorite sweetheart. Next time, you'll own that play!

Larks said that A1 beat B1 and the defender that took the charge was B2. Sounds like a secondary defender to me in which case it's fine for the lead to take it.

Z

Yowza....those are the really tough ones. Primary defender B/C calls are usually slam dunks - but those secondaries are where it gets really hairy.

I agree with the others - you made the call, it was your primary, you sold it. No point in beating yourself up. Could you have been wrong? Maybe by a micrometer (sorry for the metric). No biggie.

One thing, just from an educational standpoint (for me) - you mentioned you were in close-down when the play developed. Did you have time to back out wide? A wider vision would have made it easier to see B2. I had a situation once where I swore up and down the guy had position - until I saw the tape. My evaluator said I needed to be wider to be able to see the whole play start to finish, including the defender sliding in. Not saying that's what happened here, but same principles apply.

Remember back in the summer when someone posted links to video clips - and there was that bang-bang B/C play that no one could agree on? This sounds like one of those.

Whew - hope you had a cold one after that - you earned it.

And from his description he picked up B2 late and was not sure if he was there before A1 went up, so he was not reffing his defender he picked up trail's defender and followed that to the "help" defender.;)

This is great. You guys are saying the same thing and don't realize it! :)

There is more to "ref the defense" than people think. You have to know which defender you should be watching!

I agree with the above quotes that the Trail has A1 and B1 on this play. The Lead should be aware that they have entered his primary coverage area, but he should only help the Trail with calls on these two players. He should have his primary focus on the other players who were already in his area. One of those players was B2. When there is a collision between A1 and B2, the Lead is the primary official for this crash because he is the one who should have been watching B2's position for the whole play. He is the only one who will know for sure if B2 was in position before A1 left the floor. How could your Trail tell you that B2 slid in late, if he was focused on A1 and B1? :(

I have actually discussed this play in pregames. We talk about the secondary defender coming over to take a charge and who has responsibility for that.

I smell a faint hint of ball watching! :D Just kidding (maybe).

I think Nevada has the mechanics of this situation down pat. You have to know who the defenders in your area are. Knowing who your matchups are, at all times, is crucial (and it can add to our credibility, but that is another subject.)

If you think the player took the contact in the torso, I wouldn't split hairs. I think the OP's call was correct.

If the T had such a strong opinion AND the play originated from his area, where was his whistle at? Hmmmmmmm.

Write down "ref the D" 1,000 times..... and then throw it out the window! REF THE MATCHUP! Reffing the matchup does not fit inside reffing the D, but reffing the D does fit inside reffing the matchup, along with other things that will be picked up. It might just be a different thought process for some, but others might literally put "ref the D" into action and miss other things.

Tomegun has it right - there was a little ball watching going on. - When you close down you need to move away from the base line to maintain that angle. If B2 was there to take the charge he should have been in that angle as the play came at you.
But if the T was that sure and the play came out of his primary where was his whistle.
The call was yours - sounds to me like you had the right call - you sold it don't beat yourself over it!
review the tape and if you were wrong learn from it. But do not let this make you gun shy in calling the charge the next time.

What difference does "contact in the torso" have to do with the actual call on this play?

Answer: Absolutely nothing!

The call is solely dependant on whether the defender had a legal position before the shooter became airborne, and then maintained that legal position. If so, charge. If not, block.

"Contact in the torso" has got absolutely nothing to do with making the right call in this situation.

Btw, is "ref the match-up" the latest buzzword? Personally, I can't see how that differs from "ref the defense" at all.

Torso to torso contact is one of the things you look for to make a charging call. If the contact were to the torso to the defenders arms they were probably sticking out and not in the vertical plane so it would be a block (unless put up to absorb contact). If the contact were in the torso to legs of the defender I can't imagine that one. The principle is that for the contact to be straight on the contact has to be torso to torso to be a charge. That does include the shoulders of the offensive player.

Contact in the torso does have something to do with this play. That is my opinion just like JR gave his. I'm editing this post after reading the next two posts. JR explained himself more, which I agree with, so I think an edit is called for. Taking the contact in the chest is not the only thing to look for but it is one thing to look for. For an airborne shooter, a sliding defender is even more important. However, these are often "bang bang" plays and - let's face it - the amount of contact often determines IF we blow the whistle (along with whether the players go down..etc, etc).

If you don't understand how ref the d and ref the matchup differ, that is a part of the game you are missing. It isn't a buzzword, it is something that happens probably millions of times a day during basketball season.

This isn't even something to argue about; just two opinions. YMMV

[Edited by tomegun on Dec 28th, 2005 at 08:21 AM]

You missed JR's point. He isn't debating that torso-to-torso contact is one indicator of a charge. For two players who are running on the floor it is a very good one. However, JRs is stating that in this particular situation involving an airborne player, torso-to-torso does not mean very much. It certainly is not the definitive criterion for getting the call correct. What does matter is whether or not the defender was in his spot on the floor BEFORE the airborne player left his feet.

While torso-to-torso contact on this play would indicate that the defender probably was in proper position in time, it isn't conclusive. Tomegun merely told the OP not to worry too much about it, if the case was that the defender took it in the chest, since the OP wasn't sure that the player really was there prior to the opponent leaving his feet. If you aren't 100% sure then you need to use some clues, right?

For the record, the play in question could rightly be a blocking foul even though the defender takes the contact right square in the middle of his chest. How? He moved into that position AFTER the opponent jumped.

Exactly, torso-to-torso contact is only <b>one</b> of the things needed to know to make the correct call. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Torso-to-torso contact is not the sole <b>determining</b> factor in the call- and it never has been.

You can have torso-to-torso contact and the block-or-charge call would still be dependant on whether the defender was there before the shooter left his feet, and also whether the defender was moving towards the airborne shooter when the torso-to-torso contact occurs.

My point is that you <b>cannot</b> make the correct call in this situation just by simply going with torso-to-torso contact, as Tom said. You have to split hairs. The correct call is determined by <b>all</b> of the relevant principles involved in block/charge, not just one principle only.

Now that I see your highlighting in red, perhaps Rick wasn't missing your point as much as I thought. Sorry 'bout that, partner.

If you don't understand how ref the d and ref the matchup differ, that is a part of the game you are missing. It isn't a buzzword, it is something that happens probably millions of times a day during basketball season.

[/B][/QUOTE]Well, Tom, I had a very earnest and experienced clinician/friend explain "ref the match-up" to me last summer. He got a l'il pissed at me too when I broke out laughing. I then asked him to explain just exactly <b>where</b> that concept differs fom the <b>correctly-taught</b> version of the ol' "ref-the-defense" philosophy. After he thought about it, he finally admitted that there really wasn't that much difference at all.

It's called "re-inventing the wheel".

Of course, that just my opinion. Take it fwiw.

You are correct - I misinterpreted your response -
As Emily Lattale (Sat Night Live ) so graciously put it "Nevermind!"

Contact in the torso does have <font color = red>something</font>to do with this play. That is my opinion just like JR gave his. I'm editing this post after reading the next two posts. JR explained himself more, which I agree with, so I think an edit is called for. Taking the contact in the chest is not the only thing to look for but it is one thing to look for. For an airborne shooter, a sliding defender is even more important. However, these are often "bang bang" plays and - let's face it - the amount of contact often determines IF we blow the whistle (along with whether the players go down..etc, etc).

[/B][/QUOTE]That's all I was trying to say, Tom. I was sure that you knew all the principles correctly, but I was just trying to correct a little possible vagueness for any newer officials maybe reading that who aren't as cognizant of all the factors needed to get the call right.

I also agree that if you have a trainwreck, you should have a whistle. Most evaluators want one- whether you end up getting the call right or wrong.

Well, Tom, I had a very earnest and experienced clinician/friend explain "ref the match-up" to me last summer. He got a l'il pissed at me too when I broke out laughing. I then asked him to explain just exactly <b>where</b> that concept differs fom the <b>correctly-taught</b> version of the ol' "ref-the-defense" philosophy. After he thought about it, he finally admitted that there really wasn't that much difference at all.

It's called "re-inventing the wheel".

Of course, that just my opinion. Take it fwiw. [/B][/QUOTE]

Maybe, just maybe, your friend didn't know how to explain something someone had told him. That is part of my point; some people listen with no understanding which may lead to them doing/saying something that they know nothing of. If someone, one person, takes "reffing the D" literally, they could miss many things with the matchup. However, if they are told from day 1 to ref the matchup, including the d, they will see more traveling, carries (POE), double dribbles and other things. Additionally, this will force more of an open look which goes a loooooong way towards seeing the whole play AND the next play/matchup (passes, picks and other things). Here is what gets me: if you understand what I'm saying and I understand what you are saying, this verbage isn't for us and it does neither of us any good to go back and forth. BUT, if someone, anyone, gains a little bit from what is said, that helps the game. That is what is important to me.

WOW! Look at your post while I was writing mine. We are pretty much saying doing the same thing.

Here is what gets me: if you understand what I'm saying and I understand what you are saying, this verbage isn't for us and it does neither of us any good to go back and forth. <font color = red>BUT, if someone, anyone, gains a little bit from what is said, that helps the game. That is what is important to me.</font>

WOW! Look at your post while I was writing mine. We are pretty much saying doing the same thing. [/B][/QUOTE]We agree.

Is this where we hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"? :D

Group hug?

That warm, fuzzy feeling is back. Perhaps it's just the eggnog? :D

Refing the defense will always give you a good clean look at what is happening. I am doing that more and more now and trying to train myself to do it all the time. As far as your call, the Trail Official is "suppose" to carry the play all the way to the basket and should have had a whistle. That is a pre-game discussion, but like I said, ref the defense and you cant go wrong.

Do you mean this literally or figuratively? :D

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

Figuratively, of course.

Not in my pregame.

The Trail would have this play if A1 and B1 crashed, but if a secondary defender, B2, tries to take a charge the official from whose primary area this defender came from has the whistle. So from where did B2 come from, Lead's or C's area? That is who makes this call.

Any other official, even if he has the dribbler, has no idea whether or not that defender got into position in time.
The only official who can get this call right is the one watching B2.

For a charge, the defender has to have established legal guarding position. If you're not watching B2 in this play, how can you determine this?

It looks to me like the key is to constantly be watching to determine who has LGP in your zone. Is this the right approach?

It's easy to say you should have been looking here or there, but in this case, without knowing whether B2 has LGP, yet knowing that sufficient contact for a foul has occured, what is the correct approach?
Blow the whistle and confer with other officials, (i.e., act like you've got a double whistle) or use your experience and judgment and make the call on your own?

Agreed!

Not necessarily, Jim. The secondary defender, B2, coulda been in a rebounding position with his back turned to the play before the shooter left his feet. In that case, that secondary defender never had LGP, but if he was there <b>before</b> the shooter became airborne, it's a charge if the shooter knocks him over-- even though the contact woulda been on the back of the secondary defender. In that case, the secondary defender didn't have LGP, but he did have a legal floor position.

There's a buncha factors- and different rules- involved in getting this one right. I personally think that the key is close to what you said above; you have to know the position and status of the defensive players in the area when the shooter goes airborne. And to do that you have to referee the defense/match-up.

Good question by Larks btw- and a good discussion.

I'm going with the latter...make the call and make you and your crew look strong...hopefully. (Heck, you've got a 50% chance you were actually right.) ;)

It's funny this topic is on the forum today...I had this exact play happen last night. Unfortunately, we didn't have as good a pre-game as Nevada has concerning the secondary defender out of your partner's area.

I was L...close down...and had B2 in the key. A1 drove from T's primary with B1 getting beat. As I was going wide, B2 obtained LGP in about the #2 postition on the floor...Boom, A1 crashed into B2. As they both were going OOB they just about took me out as I was selling the Player Control. (I might have been a little to close to the endline.)
I kept my feet and reported the foul. My partner had a whistle also...but held the call. As I was putting the ball in play, my partner touched his chest...He might have been communicating to me that it was his call, I'll have to call him today to see what he meant.
We had a really good game that came down to a last second shot, hitting the rim at the buzzer, in OT...so we were to busy trying to figure out who was buying the sodas for the OT to talk about that play...but, we'll get to it today.

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....

I could not get <font color = red>deeper</font> 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.

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.

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.

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!

Just my $0.02
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: Just my $0.02
 

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.

Re: Re: Just my $0.02
 

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

Re: Re: Re: Just my $0.02
 

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.

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 :D), 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]

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.

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

next matchup...whatever. It's just a new phrasing of the same philosophies started by someone trying to make it seem like they've had some new insight that no one else has.

I understand why you are saying this but what do you do on the court literally? You watch the matchup. Why not say what you are really doing?

Wouldn't it be better to have wider "tunnel vision?"

Camron, do you really think that is why this other official told us this? When he said it, I didn't take it that way because in reality, we ref the matchup. Can we get past this notion of someone supposedly making a new phrase and look at this for what it is? What do we do on the court, ref the D or ref the matchup? Since we ref the matchup, why can't we say we ref the matchup? The only thing I thought about when I heard this was it makes sense. I still don't understand the reluctance.

Tom, what you call "reffing the match-up" is exactly the same principle that I was taught 40 years ago when it was called "see the <b>whole</b> play". We were taught to try and get a wide enough view to see not only what the ballhandler and primary defender were doing, but also how help-defenders and screeners could affect that play. That concept evolved through some other buzzwords into "ref the defense", which has now morphed into "ref the match-up".

Iow, same-old, same-old. As I said, they're just reinventing the wheel imo. There's nothing the matter with that either because the principle used is as sound and valid now as it was 40 years ago. It just ain't really anything new imo, is all.

I think the term you used 40 years ago is more complete than ref the defense. I think "see the whole play" is a better term than ref the defense.
It might be the same old thing to us but someone else could take ref the defense literally and miss other things. I'm just repeating something I was told, but as you can tell, if you want to call it "see the whole play" I'm not going to get all upset because I think it is a good term too. It isn't about whether the messenger is trying to big time (my words, not someone else's) me, it is about the game and officiating.

Perhaps not the person you heard it from but someone, somewhere, was trying to improve the wheel. While the content is certainly correct, it doesn't add any new thinking to the body of officiating...it's just rephrasing the same ideas.

I watch through the match up.

There is no set term that fits what an official actually needs to do on the floor. It's more a string of things:

1. Find the defense...this means more than just an individual defender, it's the right defender for the play coming to or already in your primary.

2. Be aware of the ball...this includes the player, player control, and status of pivot foot.

3. See through the play/match up...the open look, no stack, plus...

4. Pick up players off ball through that open look, find the second match up/screening situation.

All that ties into proper positioning, staying open and getting a wide view, and using your peripheral vision.

Boil that down into a simple phrase and win a cookie.:D

I watch through the match up.

There is no set term that fits what an official actually needs to do on the floor. It's more a string of things:

1. Find the defense...this means more than just an individual defender, it's the right defender for the play coming to or already in your primary.

2. Be aware of the ball...this includes the player, player control, and status of pivot foot.

3. See through the play/match up...the open look, no stack, plus...

4. Pick up players off ball through that open look, find the second match up/screening situation.

All that ties into proper positioning, staying open and getting a wide view, and using your peripheral vision.

Boil that down into a simple phrase and win a cookie.:D [/B][/QUOTE]<b>"See the whole play"</b>

I hope my cookie ain't 40 years old too. :)

"See the whole play" works for me as long as someone doesn't take that term the same as a singular play and a patient whistle. It is a better term than telling someone to "ref the D."

I will slightly disagree with one thing: If I'm on-ball, I will be aware of possible players that could set a pick. ************************************************** ************ I was going to say I wouldn't be aware of another matchup but when I thought about it, I will be aware of other matchups in my area.

I would like to point out that JR's argument about the term "ref the matchup" had more to do with re-inventing a term and less to do with a small chip on his shoulder. See the whole play, when used in the proper context, is the most complete term but ref the matchup is still a better term than ref the defense. Others have simply criticized someone (it wasn't me) for a term even though they can't admit that term gives a better description of what they actually do on the court than ref the d. To make a long story short, don't have a closed mind and grow up (not you JR, I can appreciate a good counterpoint with substance).

:D :D

That was the <b>only</b> small chip on my shoulder, Tom. :) Whatever you end up labeling the mechanic, it is a very sound, helpful concept for any official. I'm glad to see it's still being taught properly.

Of course, that's just my opinion too- fwiw.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to me. ;)

I was not trying to deny that "ref the match up" is probably more complete than ref the D if you're trying to sum up all the actions on the court.

The thread was talking about block/charge. To determine block/charge, Ref the D is fully and completely adequate. If you know what the D did, you'll know who to call for a foul.

If you want to expand the context to cover more than contact then there are certainly better expressions..."see the whole play". Ref the matchup is ok but there are a lot more things going on than "the matchup".

No need to get childish in your arguments (i.e. "closed mind....grow up"). There was no need for much substance in my post since others had already expressed the relevant points.

Another couple of terms for you guys: "Trail Mentality" , "Big Picture Mentality" or "Panoramic View Concept".

By employing this I don't see a reason why the Trail could not have had a whistle on this Block/Charge play. Once A1 has beat B1, B1 is not the guy who is going to hurt you on this play, you are using your "Big Picture Mentality" and anticipating the play which in this case is the Block/Charge with B2 coming across to take the charge. All be it I believe this should be a delayed whistle giving way to the L but none the less there should have been a double whistle with the cadence being L then T, not a simultaneous whistle unless the L decides at the last second to call a foul.

"Trail Mentality"? As opposed to the "Center Mentality" or the "Lead Mentality"? :confused: Is it hard to switch from a "Trail Mentality" mindset to a "Center Mentality" mindset and vice-versa every time the Lead comes across or goes back? What happens if you made a call using your "Trail Mentality" when you shoulda used your "Center Mentality"? Is that a correctible official's mistake?

"Panoramic View Concept"??

Giggle.......

That one could only come outa the.....wait for it.....SEC. :D

I can picture some frizzy-headed mad scientist sitting tucked away at a small desk in a converted closet someplace, feverishly working at coming up with new buzzwords to describe officiating concepts that have been around since Naismith was a pimply-faced teenager.

Lah me. Must be missing the "Big Picture" again. :D

Note- not making fun of you, RefTN. Making fun of the goobers who came up with those dandies.

JR, those buzzwords may have originated from the SEC but they are used elswhere also.

Can you tell me what old term is the same as "trail mentality?" I'm curious about it. I always like to really learn about things like this (I had to throw that in so you would know my question is genuine).

Tom, I honestly don't have a clue whatinthehell "trail mentality" is. I'm not even sure that I really want to know, to be quite honest. Is it any different from "center mentality" or "lead mentality"? Is this the face of someone who cares? :D

I can't keep track of all of 'em anymore. Too many mad scientists- too few me's.

Whatever it is though, I'd bet Lark's left one that it ain't really a new concept at all. Also note that I ain't putting it down either- whatever the hell it is.

"I'm bilingual. I speak 2 languages- Murican and SEC." :D

I gotta agree with Jurassic. These buzz words are getting ridiculous. It's just basketball.

Z

"Trail Mentality" mainly refers to the C and wanting to get to the topside of the play alot like a Trail.

"Big Picture Mentality" or "Panoramic View Concept" refers mainly to the Trail and that he has the all inclusive look of the floor or at least he should.

Jurassic surely you know one of these two terms cause they are as archaic as you: Pinch the paint or walking through the drive. Ring a bell. ding ding

If not I understand because whether people believe it or not the game has changed and there are new terms out there. No one until less than 8 years ago were taught to get topside or use a "Trail mentality" at C. They were taught to stay at home until the L had completed his rotation. These are all fairly new terms and there are more than this so if we all get familiar with them now it will be easier to work with in the future.

I understand you. FWIW, refTN (like many others) is a young official so he speaks the language he was taught, if you know what I mean. Also, if someone is going to give me games at $1000 + a pop, I'm going to talk their language. :D I like to know the new, the old and the in-between just so I know. However, those collared shirts and flat-front pants were just brutal! That is some "old" I don't miss at all!

I understand what the terms mean. They're just needless. The concepts are simple, but using inane terms like "Panoramic View Concept" make things seem more complicated than they are. There will always be people in every profession (or hobby) who feel the need to invent terms that make them sound important.

Z

I'll bet you just impress the hell right out of all your middle-school coaches when you use those terms too. :D

You gonna try all that stuff out when, or if, you ever get to do a varsity high school game?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 30th, 2005 at 12:44 PM]

I'm not wishy washy, but I am acceptable to change. This post made me think; in the computer industry, people do the same thing.

I know, I work as a systems programmer for a large aerospace company. The new buzzwords come around all the time to describe things we've been doing for years. Then they are replaced by new terms that mean the same thing. It's silly.

Maybe the posters on this board could come up with some great terms that sound really complicated to describe simple concepts.

How about, "maintaining sufficient and appropriate duration of time and focus on offensive spherical projectile launcher?" That means "stay with shooter."

Z

How about, "maintaining sufficient and appropriate duration of time and focus on offensive spherical projectile launcher?" That means "stay with shooter."

[/B][/QUOTE]LOL!

How about anything with "paradigm" in it? That always gets to Dilbert. And me too.

It's still clear, though. I mean if a person were to sort back through the words and their meanings, and put things together, it would turn out that the long phrase equals the short phrase. The ref-camp-speak is muddy and meaningless -- as is a lot of jargon. What are "wide eyes?" I hate that term. What is "the panoramic view concept?" It's vague and fuzzy. To make "stay with the shooter" truly obscurantist use words with lots of different meanings, and words that are often mis-used. Like "Parameter" and "Myriad" and "multi-tasking". It's also good to use words as the wrong parts of speech, such as "priority your time" and "let's signify this".

In your attempt, I think "duration" and "focus" are very good, but "spherical" is way too specific, as are "projectile" and "launcher."

Let's see....

Focal point on primary offense

Focal point the airborne

shooter goes headline (meaning the shooter gets all the attention)

surely someone out there works in advertising and could come up with something really trendy-sounding. I mean, "Stay with the shooter" is so last week!!

How about...

Context-senstitive transitive shooter-centric prioritization paradigm

LOL, BITS- yup, that'll work.

That is a great one BITS. I'm sure that will be used a lot at referee camps in the ....... (wait for it)...... SEC!

Z