I will give it about 3 months and ask you if you still assume this.
I totally understand what you are saying. That does not mean I'm going to like it any more. Personally, I would always say the L shouldn't call it and then the focus of discussion would be on why the C didn't make the call and what can be done so that doesn't happen again.
There are several posts that lead me to believe many games elswhere are all peaches and cream. Looking outside your area can be a career ender; not because what you see/call in the area you are watching, but what can occur in the area you are supposed to be watching!
I wonder if anyone suggesting "get it right" ever says players don't have fundamentals like the used to. We have fundamentals too!

See Tom, here's the deal.

"My way" is essentially "your way". We both work about the same level, we both attend roughly the same camps with the same clinicians, Well, maybe I haven't been tainted by the NBA mentality, but I am 110% positive that given this game situation you and I would be standing in the same spot, refereeing the same area and making the same decision based on the play we saw. But you keep saying "my way" gives license to ball watch and "your way" is mechanically sound.

What I get from reading about "your way" is that you prefer the Soviet Army style of officiating: this is my 10 square feet of floor to watch and by God my orders are to watch it and I will watch it regardless of what's going on elsewhere. Don't be offended if I think your way is mechanically unsound, I happen to prefer being aware of more than my own 10 square feet of gym floor. Whether I make a call based on something I see outside of my primary is another question entirely. And this thread happens to be about whether or not the L should reach across the floor to make a game saving call. And IMO, if the L has positioned himself properly to make this game saving call (ie he's not standing on the endline with his thumb up his @ss) then he needs to take it if no one else does & he is 110% sure.

So let's just agree to disagree on this.

edit:

btw...and this will hopefully be my last word...if A1 was coming down the side opposite to the C (L & T's side) would you have a problem with the C reaching across to take the call? I hope not. And to my mind this play is similar.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Jan 6th, 2006 at 11:59 AM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

btw...and this will hopefully be my last word...if A1 was coming down the side opposite to the C (L & T's side) would you have a problem with the C reaching across to take the call? I hope not. And to my mind this play is similar.

That's not a similar play. The C has secondary coverage in that play you just mentioned, ESPECIALLY in transition.

In the original post, the L does not have secondary coverage in the C's area above the top-of-the-key, even in transition (unless the other 8 players are still trailing the play in which case the L may as well help out or he'll be reffing nothing but floor space).

Z

You must be talking about Georgia - I certainly don't see many of those games around here. ;)
Again, in almost all situations, I totally agree with you. And, in most situations, I have partners that believe the same as well. However, in this specific case, not getting the (perhaps) game-deciding call right could also be a career-ender. In college, and perhaps HS as well, the first person the supervisor is going to talk to after watching the tape would be the C - what happened to put them in that position, why were they so close to the play, etc. Then, the next question will be to the partners - how come they didn't see anything? Remember, this was a transition, so we all have wider, less-defined areas to cover. And, since this was close to an end-of-game, who had the last shot? Ok, obviously not the L, but perhaps an example of how someone else could be aware of the ball without it being in their primary.

Now, in my area, most HS all hire their own officials; except for one league, there is no assignor or association that assigns the games. So the AD's and coaches really don't care whose call it is or isn't, just how come three officials missed it. And if 3 officials can't get a game-deciding call right, why pay for 3 officials? Let's save some money and go back to paying for 2. That's where I'm coming from - our credibility in this case comes from getting the call right.
Absolutely. And in most cases, the fundamentals will serve us well. But even one of the most fundamentally sound players I know, Tim Duncan, will occasionally do the spectacular move, if needed. So can we - we should be fundamentally sound all game; but every once in a while we should be prepared to be spectacular as well.

We can agree to disagree, but..."boys and girls, no matter what big, bad Mr. Dan says, there is no 'proper position' for the L to be in to make this call." :D

I have to disagree with part of what you are saying. I still work in places where the ADs give out games. The ADs still hire 3 officials because the state is not going back to 2 Officials. The state is going to stay with 3 Person mechanics and either the ADs have people work what they will see in the playoffs or they might get surprised by what might happens in the playoffs when it really counts. I compare this to 5 man mechanics in football, they are not going back to 4 officials anytime soon (if ever). This will be about the 10th year for 3 Person to be used in all playoff games. As a matter of fact I usually get less interference from ADs about calling the game than I ever have working with assignors. ADs are trying to cover games; they are not just concerned about one or two calls. At least this is the case in my experience working with ADs. I have yet to hear of one call being the only reason an officials will not get hired from an AD. Usually it is a series of things. I know for a fact that with assignors I have known guys to get banned for one call.

Peace

In a lot of cases, that's true. But there are still schools in my area that only hire 2 officials, and they are trying to convince other schools to do the same because they claim they don't see a better game called with 3. Obviously you and I know that has more to do with the specific officials than the 3-person system. Whether it's just old-fashioned thinking that will eventually go away, or if it's gaining momentum, has yet to be seen.

But, I'll bet if you poll coaches and AD's about which is more important, working within the system or getting the call right, the vast majority will say get the call right. It's up to us as officials to show them working within the system is usually the best way to get it right.

Hey, Mr. Dan, I know you're bad, but when did you get big? Too many donuts?

Hey Mr. PBS-watcher, that would be Mr. Dan Sir to you.

And I'm only big when I'm standing next to Chuck.

:p

First of all, why would you poll coaches? Coaches are going to say and do what is in the best interest of their teams. Hopefully, you know that and will re-think your position about polling coaches. Also, you must be working in front of some simple, down-to-earth coaches. If we tried that in the DC area, the coaches would ask the question I thought we all have heard, "how can he call that when you are right there" or "that's not your call, that is his call."

If working within the system, as you say, is usually the best way to get it right, why are you talking about "just get it right" so much? Working within the system means 3 officials working together in their areas. There are primaries and secondaries but the play is question is neither. I still don't understand why you aren't talking about the C getting in a better position. Well, maybe I know why. I don't think we've talked about that for two pages or so.

I would love to have seen an evaluator at this game, and been a fly on the wall in the dressing room following the game to see what order he chastised this crew for allowing this situation to occur.

As for taking a poll, would the evaluator rip the:

A) C for getting out of position

B) T for not being in position to pick up the play when it opened up to him/her

C) or L for making the call across the court 45 ft + away from the play.

Even though they may have gotten the call right, this sounds like a case of terrible officiating.

Yeeeeeeeessssssssssssss! :D

I agree.

The crew screwed this up.

The poll is hypothetical - I never met George Gallup so I don't know the right way to do a poll anyway. The point I way trying to make was the difference between working for a supervisor/assignor vs. working for the school. A supervisor will be much more aware of the mechanics, and whether the officials are working within the system, while an AD or coach just cares about getting the calls right. (Of course, if I'm doing the poll during the game, the coach just wants the calls in favor of his/her team. But that's another discussion.)
Maybe it comes from attending NCAA-W camps, and there may be a slightly different philosophy here, but "getting it right" means more than just working the system correctly, it also means making the right calls. Granted, if we do the things we're supposed to do, we will be in postion to see the things we need to see, and then make the right calls. But sometimes stuff happens. If a ball comes out of my area and goes OOB on my partner's line, and they ask for help because they're not sure, I'm not gonna shrug my shoulders and tell them "Sorry, not my line". If I know for sure, I'm going to give them information to make the right call.

Agreed
Agreed, almost all of the time.
This is the line I have the problem with. Are our mechanics more important than the players' game?