Team A is down 2 with 10 seconds to go, bringing the ball up-court versus full-court pressure. A1 dribbles up the sideline with B1 running beside him, picking up his dribble when B2 slides over to the sideline, five feet or so into the front-court to cut him off. The slot official is on-ball, having run side-by-side with A1 since the dribble began. A1 is now trapped, and he pivots away from the slot toward the middle of the floor. As/after pivot occurs, B1 reaches in and grabs A1's forearm, dispossesses him of the ball then picks it up. I am sitting in the stands opposite the slot, so I am able to see the grab, the grab that he cannot see. When I don't hear an immediate whistle, I glance back at the trail hoping he has a look, and as I'm doing that, I hear a crack, and I see the lead closing down on the play with a fist held high. He was underneath the basket when the foul occurred. The clock stops with 5.3 left and A1 on the line for two. I'll save the end of the game and the post-game discussion for later, except to say that the trail told his partners that he didn't have any kind of a look on the play.

Would you make this call from lead? from trail? If you do, what is your general philosophy on the circumstances under which you would make it (time, margin, previous plays, etc.)? What's your reaction if you're the slot or trail?



[Edited by jbduke on Jan 4th, 2006 at 03:24 AM]

Did A1 pivot away from C toward the basket?

I'm assuming that C was in a stack caused by A1's body, while T probably would be looking through B1.

It's possible that in this case L would be the only official with an open look, not that they should be looking there.

This play is the very situation where C should force the rotation and back out and become trail.

Yes. A1 pivoted "through" the basket; i.e. the ball, during the pivot, swept an arc that included the basket. Your two assumptions are correct. Also, the L was indeed the only official with an open look.

Regarding your last point, this was a quick transition situation at the end of a period. "Backing out" by the slot is not an issue here, because he went from a virtual sprint with A1 up the sideline, to a quick stop once A1 picked up the dribble to avoid a PC foul at the point of the trap (five feet or so beyond division line in FC). Had time not been running out, there would have been no "backing out" to speak of. The lead would have rotated, and the old slot would have become the new trail, with no movement necessary on his part, save a small position adjustment to open the angle which closed on him when A1 pivoted.

What I'm saying is C should have FORCED the rotation by becoming the trail and thus TRAILING the play. Different areas do different things with last second shots and locking down, but even in that situation C needs to anticipate the trap and not try to out run the play.

I liken it to new lead knowing they are beat and instead of trying to out run the play, gather yourself, slow down and work the angle to get the look.

I can already tell we're never going to agree on this part of the issue. In a transition situation, I think it's just a horrible idea to prescribe that the slot official check up and trail a dribbler racing up his sideline when a trap may materialize. What about the potential block-charge developing? Your mechanic sends the slot directly into a stack, you've given the trail even less opportunity to be useful than he already had, and now you can rely only on the lead, fifty feet away, for help on this play. Disastrous, disastrous mechanic recommendation. The present system accounts for this situation as well as possible.

Unlike the stack the C found himself in, in your play?

This is no different than if the same play was coming down trail's side, by your logic trail...in spite of what the name suggests...should sprint and be even with the ball.

By staying even the C forced himself into a stack with the play happening right in their lap. No place to go, no room to adjust their angle.

C either needs to beat the play and be in front of it and have it come to him, or trail it to see the whole thing.

I didn't think something was right as soon as I noticed the OP said the C was running side-by-side with the ball handler. I guess this is where we introduce that hated buzzword "trail mentality." :D If the play was on the sideline, where would the C go to anticipate a play, any play? My first choice would be backing out and getting an open look. We would almost have to see a diagram of the players' position to say where the correct position would have been, but I think the outcome tells us that it wasn't where the C was.

I don't like the L making this call. More than that, I don't like the fact that something went wrong mechanically. The L saved the game and hopefully the C is really thinking about their floor mechanics in a three person game.

I don't like it, either. But especially in transition, when post play hasn't developed yet, the Lead can help out on plays that are coming toward him/her, even if it's not in his/her primary.

Having said that, it doesn't sound like this play actually was coming to the Lead, as the trap stopped the movement to the Lead. But I would rather have the Lead come and grab that call (especially in transition, as I said), than allow a clear foul to cause a turnover.

Unlike Tommy, I don't think the C can trail the play here. In order to trail this play, and have an angle, it sounds like you'd have to be out on the court, on that "volleyball line". That's not how "Trail mentality" was explained to me and even in the NBA (where "trail mentaility" was coined), I don't see a lot of Slot officials in a trail position in transition. Yes, it's better to be a little behind it than a little in front of it; but it's more important to see through the play. And it's possible to do that from the sideline, even if you're "even" with the ball; depending on the position of the players.

The key is angle, obviously. You go wherever you have to go to get the angle. I think Tommy and I would agree to that. My last thought is that no position or angle is going to be perfect. No position on the floor will allow you to see the foul when the ballhandler pivots away from you so that his body is between you and the ball. And that's when the C, or in this case the L, has to help out. And that has to be talked about in pre-game, too.

Agreed. Since C was "even" with the play, he couldn't see the foul that the B player towards the middle of the floor committed. If C was trailing, he couldn't see the foul that the B player on the sideline might have committed.

Chuck, you are right, the trail mentality would not be used in this case. In the league where this term came from, the NBA, they rotate a lot sooner. When the ball comes up the sideline, the Slot would back out and the L would rotate. This is an automatic response for this type of play to NBA officials and it would have helped on this play. If the play occurred in the area near the free-throw line extended, the L would have his eyes on it and the T would also. This is a play where they would probably want two sets of eyes on the ball, but those eyes would be in a better position. Of course this is if the officials aren't locked down. At any rate, what is your suggestion, because the L making this play over and over again is not the answer?

So what is the answer? I'm in favor of doing away with this lock down theory and getting in position to see the plays. I think the C going to T would have allowed better vision and the L could have protected the T's front (basket) side.

Right. They probably would initiate the rotation even before the ball hit the frontcourt, right? But we don't like to do that in HS/NCAAM.

My only suggestion would be for the Trail to be more aware of the situation. If the C is even with the play, I would like to see the T move even further toward the middle of the court while coming from backcourt to frontcourt. Almost like we would do in a 2-whistle game.

When the ball is trapped in the corner of the frontcourt, I'd like the Trail to still be in the backcourt, near the jump circle, trying to get a look through the nearer defender. The C can handle the defender that is closer to the sideline.

We always say in pre-game that we want our C to be very active tonight. But this is a case where the Trail has to be active and get a look through the play. You can't let the C have the whole play, b/c it's obvious that s/he can't handle the whole play from the sideline.

This is a great thread, BTW. Good situation and good thoughts on it.

I would say no. As a matter of fact, I would say NO, NO, NO! The C should work out their mechanics for a better look. Maybe, MAYBE, the L should think about coming over, but there is no way I would suggest the T should be looking over there. Are the players going to "make a hole" so the T can see through? IMO, the answer is still for the C to get a better look.

Ultimately, it sounds like the correct call was made. And THAT is the most important thing in this, or any other, situation. You always want to be in the correct position to make the call - but even if you're not, you (or your partner) have to make the correct call no matter where it comes from.

In this instance, I would have preffered the Trail to make the call rather than look to the Lead for his view. Here's my thought process: I'm certain it's a foul, I'm certain my partner didn't see it, therefore I'm certainly going to blow my whistle.

A good crew consists of good partners making good calls.

My logic absolutely does not imply what you write that it does. The trail is the "trail" because he has help ahead and across the floor from the slot. The slot does not have this luxury, unless you're happy with the lead making these types of calls. If you are, cool; I had no problem with the lead making the call in the play I described. But you can't have the slot trail this play and be unhappy with the lead making the call from 50+ feet.

I think that there's no changing the fact that when one official is attempting to referee a trap by himself, there is the possibility of problems. The potential problem is exacerbated when in transition, because the players, and thus the officials, are more spread out.

I'm not alone in what I've been saying.

The trap in C's corner is the play that should force a rotation. C clearly cannot make the call from the position that they had, and the only way to fix that is for them to be in front of it and work back, or trail it. Trailing it would be the easiest and best option in transition with the play right in their lap.

There is no way that the lead should have a whistle on this play! The slot official should not be running up with the ball. The slot official is clearly out of position on this play. He should have backed out away from the play and got a better look. The crew has lost all credibility, if the lead makes this call.

The crew loses more credibility with the lead making the correct call, or with team B running out the last five seconds with a two-point lead after an uncalled foul leads to the decisive turnover?

If I read the post correctly, I can't picture the lead looking at that play in the first place. Did he not have any matchups in his area that he was observing as the play was coming up the floor? Perhaps he did not trust this partner and that is why he was reffing out of his area.

I haven't had any partners this year so weak that I (as Lead) would be looking into an area where the C has primary and the T has secondary, even as the game winds down.

Z

Important questions. The C was beaten in transition twice in the first half, and called a ghost foul in one of those situations, so I think that had something to do an apparent lack of trust.

There were no competitive match-ups below the head-of-key extended.

IMO, that changes everything. If I did not trust my partner and I had no matchups in my primary, then I might be helping out. However, I would sure hope that I trusted my T and it would sure look better if he grabbed that call.

Z

It sounds as though L could have seen the trap developing, and started a rotation and thus had a fair angle to see the contact.

If I were the C, I'd be thrilled if someone called that out from under me (someone besides a coach!). I think the most important thing in this sitch is to get the call right, regardless of who has the angle.

Credibility
 

You are not trying to gain credibility, you trying to get the call correct. I don't like the L making this call but if he does he better come strong closing hard and shouting at the same time. Because as soon as his whistle is blown heads are turning 45 degrees saying "whattttt". Lead is looking across the paint through the players 40 feet away blowing his whistle. He is all by himself when that whistle is blown and only thing he can do is bring everyone to that play with his whistle, words and (Tom and Jerry) his two feet running. IMO

To me, a help situation like this has to have two elements:

1. The helping official needs to have a very high level of certainty that the call is right, especially because of the distance involved.

2. Knowledge that the covering official cannot see the play is a requirement at that distance. The fact that the calling official passes on a call is many times ON PURPOSE and this needs to be respected.

I have had help situations in two many when the Lead cannot see a clear (from T's angle) push off by a player driving to the basket where the L is in a good position to see a block charge but cannot see the offensive players arm that is used to ward off the defender.

Classic and convenient! One question though: were there any match-ups closer than the one in question?

I did not read the OP close enough and thought the play was near the free throw line extended. Sorry for my oversight. Now that I have corrected that mistake, there is really no way the L should have called this; he shouldn't have to. Again, the C shouldn't have been running along side the dribbler. It could result in instantly being stacked, Oh I'm sorry, it did result in him being stacked! Now that I know where the play took place, I think the C should have been lower than the play. Did he stop at the exact same time as the dribbler? How convenient that is! :rolleyes: Since most of us don't know when the dribbler is going to pull up, I think most would have went at least another step past the dribbler. Unless...you see the trap coming. If the C was lower than the play, he would have seen the same thing the L saw.

OK, we have heard the line about getting it right being the most important thing. Spending 5% of the time on that statement and 95% of the time on making sure these types of things do not happen will decrease the times it happens! I think two person is more like survival and I've heard three person mechanics described as an art. The crew was mechanically wrong, period.

Thank God for geography! :D

Team is down 2 with 10 seconds left... Yes, the answer is yes L should make this call if they are 110% sure there was an obvious foul that C and T missed.

And to say that as L you aren't looking over in that direction and wouldn't help is ridiculous unless you are a rookie who isn't confident enough to help in this situation. As my partner I would say thanks! you just saved the game.

The other issue if you are slot or center and in transition the ball is on your side you should get behind it and trail that match-up. If you are staying ahead of the play you are going to find yourself straightlined, but if you are behind, just a few feet, you will have a better angle on any plays to the basket.

One more point to Lead making this call. When I was at camp two years ago we had a situation where I made a call from center (the wrong call) because both of my partners got "blocked" from the play. The evaluator said on the last play of the game you aren't allowed to become blocked out. Move to where you can see. If you are L and have to come half way into the key, then do so. If you are T and have to come half way on the court, then do so. If you are C and have to trail the play, then do so.

But hey that's just me...

So then you're saying that the L should never make this call?

Chuck, last night I had a game and gave 110%! :D :rolleyes:

I think the crux of this is: Where was the T? If the ball is coming upcourt on the C's sideline, shouldn't the T be drifting towards the center of the floor instead of hugging his/her sideline? As was mentioned, if the T was on the court, towards the circle, and the dribbler turned toward the center of the floor, the T would have had a call right in front of him/her. I put this on the T for not helping out. I think instead of crucifying the C or the L, what was the T doing?

I completely disagree. If I trust my partners, I will not be looking there. In a 3-official game, why would we have 6 eyes watching the on-ball matchup? The only time as lead that I might be peeking over there is if I have no trust of my partner(s).

It wouldn't show confidence for the L to go help in this situation. It would show a lack of confidence in the ability of your C and T.

Z

Might you also be be peeking over there if a half line trap may trigger a rotation?

Absolutely correct and mechanically sound! I have a feeling that more times than not the "getting it right is the most important" argument is used as a license to watch the ball.

The other post is correct also; the T shouldn't have been hugging the sideline if the ball was on the other side of the court.

Can the OP come back and tell us approximately where the other 7 players were?

Might you also be be peeking over there if a half line trap may trigger a rotation? [/B][/QUOTE]

Peek and rotate, not peek and referee! The OP hasn't said whether the Lead started to rotate or if he just came from the baseline opposite to make the call. I would also like to know where the nearest competitive matchup was and if there were any players between the L and the foul.

Hey, wait a minute! Didn't you say "No, No, No!" when I said the Trail should cheat over?!?! :)

Bottom line: Did they get it right?


Only thing different would be for the C to not run right beside the players. My experience is that I am either ahead of the players or behind. It would be a coincidence if I am exactly even. With traps and other things happening out there, it is not unusual to not see a hack or grab. Things happen so fast that I think it is unfair to tell someone that they should have "backed out." I wasn't there and I don't know exactly what the positions were and how it all came about.

I might have but I also said I was sorry because I didn't read the OP correctly. If you said the T should cheat over, I agree with you now that I have a better picture of the play. :D

Woo-hoo!! You like me!! You really like me!!

I'm not saying that things don't happen during a game, but show me a crew (of 3) that goes into a game thinking like this and I will probably be able to show you plenty of things that were missed. Should we talk about what could be done to get it right or "just get it right" more? Also, this isn't fair to some states because officials are working hard every year to KEEP 3-person! Coaches aren't dummies - at least not all of them :D - and they will make an argument about the added expense when plays like this happen over and over again. Should those officials approach a game with this attitude or really work on focusing on their primary and getting open looks?

Rainmaker, I have to disagree with you on this one. I wouldn't want someone coming approx 40ft. to take a call away from me while I am approx 5 ft away and the T in the vicinity. For the life of me, I can't see the L making this call, especially on the endline. IMO if the L has no competitive matchups, then he should be doubling the lines and should be free throw extended. If that is the case, then he may have a whistle on the play.

[Edited by brianp134 on Jan 5th, 2006 at 12:00 PM]

Tommy, what do you mean by Thank God for geography?

Calm down Chuck. January is his turn.

My opinion on the play: I'm still not sure who was standing where but clearly the C was not in the best position and the T should have been ready to help. But I get nervous when people say "you should not be looking there". There's good enough reason for the L to keep tabs on where the C is if there's nothing else going on in his area - (not clear on what was going on by the basket btw, maybe the OP can clue us in on that too. BUT if the L was at the endline on the other side of the court he had better be absolutely positive and he had better come rushing in tooting that whistle like a lunatic. There are some calls that are game savers, if he got it right he's the hero if not he's the goat. Big time goat.

There are so many different ways I want to cuss you out right now! Your phone will be ringing soon.

When is the last (and only) time you called me "Tommy?" I see I've been letting you get away with too much since you are being all "mouthy." I will correct that soon enough! :D

I'm sorry, I should have said Tom. MY bad

I haven't done much 3-person at all, so I can't say I have it down pat, so maybe I'll word my viewpoint in the form of a question -- Jeopardy-style. These aren't intended to be Socratic, they are genuine uncertainties.

It sounds as though there are no players that need watching that are below the free-throw line extended. Why would Lead be clear down on the endlne? But let's say he is there, now he's got no competetive match-up in his primary, and he's using "wide eyes" to "see the whole floor" and lo and behold there's a trap developing on the far side of the floor. WHy wouldn't he immediately rotate to help out? Then once he's across, why wouldn't he take a step or two onto the floor to get an angle on the most important action? All of those adjustments by Lead could easily happen as the dribbler crosses the center line and the trap is closing in around him, eh?

I agree with those that are invoking the presence of the OP. Where's a good OP when you need him!?!

He should not be. From what I can tell reading the thread the L should have been about at the top of the key on his sideline.

So that would mean that he shouldn't be thinking about rotating yet? And shouldn't be looking "way over there"?

Nope, if the players nearest the basket are at the top of the key then there shouldn't be a rotation.

IMO if the L's on the sideline at the top of the key there is no way he will not see what's going on just inside the half court line opposite him, at least peripherally. Also IMO he's gonna have A1's coach standing up right behind or next to him screaming about the foul on A1 whether there was in fact a foul or not.

Okay, so Lead sees the trap close in, sees the ball-holding player pivot his body so that C is blocked, sees the foul. Does Lead call it?

That was the original question, wasn't it? ;)

Because in HS and NCAA, we generally pre-game that we don't rotate until we have 10 players and 3 officials in the frontcourt. As was pointed out on the first page or two of this thread (by tomegun), the NBA officials will rotate much sooner if they see this sitch developing. But, at least around here, we won't go that soon.

I can accept that, but what's the answer to the original question? Should lead have called this? If not, why not? And why isn't the original post-er around to help us out with the sitch? And what about Naomi?

I already gave my answer in the first couple pages.

Yes, with conditions.

I have no idea what the answer to this is.

Not only do I have no idea what the answer to that question is, I have no idea what what the question is. :confused:

Yea, you're too young. Does anyone remember "The Electric Company" on public television in the 70's? It was for beginning readers, past Sesame Street, but not really up to reading alone. Every day, at the end of the show there was an installment in their soap opera, "Love of Chair". Regardless of what happened in that episode, there were questions at the end, such as "Will the dog run? Can the boy jump?" and the last question was always, "What about Naomi?" It made a deep impression on me, obviously. I've been scarred for life, since I was required to attend high school instead of staying home watching educational television, and I've never discovered the answer to that eternal question, "What about Naomi?"

Don't worry, Chuck. I never watch public television either. It's too bleeding-heart liberal for me. Besides, it obviously scarred the people who did watch... ;)

Hey, I watched the Electric Company. Who can forget Rita Moreno belting out "Hey you guuuuuyyyyyyyys!" at the beginning of the show. And I remember Spiderman, and a couple other things about it. But I don't remember the soap opera.

And now. . . the last word: ancient. :(

I vote YES to the question of "should the Lead have called the foul".

You can talk all the mechanics you want, but if I'm on the crew and the foul doesn't get called - I certainly am not looking forward to the following conversation(s) from the losing coach/supervisor:

Coach/Supervisor: didn't you see that foul?
Lead/Trail: I did but didn't call it - it's not in my area. (not a good way to answer that one)
OR
Coach/Supervisor: didn't you see that foul?
Center: I didn't have a good look at it.
Coach: WHAT?! You were 5ft away!
Center: I just didn't see it.
OR
Coach/Supervisor: didn't you see that foul?
Lead/Trail: I wasn't looking in that area.
Coach/Supervisor: you mean we've got 3 officials and none of you can see an obvious foul in the last 5 seconds of a game near mid-court?!!!!!

If everyone agrees that it was a foul - although none of us were there, I haven't heard anyone say it WASN'T a foul - then someone HAS to call it.

Yup, and she had nice gabonzas too. Anyway, that's why I used to watch it with my kids.

I can remember my youngest son saying to me "Did you see the hooters on that one, Dad?" Yup, brought a catch to my throat and a tear to my eye. Kids- they just grow up so quickly. He was four.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 5th, 2006 at 03:55 PM]

Well, ok, I vaguely remember it as well. But I was a kid back then, just like I'm sure you were, so we're obviously not as ancient as some people who watched it with their kids. Shhh...just don't tell anybody I actually watched PBS, ok?

Oh, yea, back to the topic. I've been working on my patient keyboard mechanic, waiting until now. jeffpea seems to have the same feeling I do - if it's the right call, make it. Now, we can discuss all day whether the C was caught in the wrong spot, whether the T should've been drifting over more, or whether the L should or should not have started a rotation. But the comment about the crew losing credibility if someone calls out of their area, at this point in the game, just isn't true. Do you think if the players, or the coach, asks why the foul wasn't called, and your reply is to say "It's not the T's or L's call", they would gain this new-found respect for the crew? Hell no. Now, to me, "getting it right" is more than just getting the call right. As Tommy, (er, I mean Tom :D ) said, sometimes it's used as an excuse for having more eyes on-ball. But, at least with most of the partners I work with, "getting it right" is the whole package - being in the right position and hustling to get there, knowing your areas of coverage, trusting your partners to cover their areas, etc. But, sometimes, being aware of something that happens outside your area can actually bring more credibility to the crew. If I'm the C in this case, I'm thanking my partner for making the right call, then apologizing to them for not being in the right spot to make the call in the first place.

One other thing: the call has to be the right one. If it wasn't, I'll be standing right next to the coach as we both yell at the L for making that long-distance wrong call. ;)

Like you, I remember Rita Moreno and Spiderman. But then one wonders, if you've got Spiderman, why WOULD anybody remember some silly soap? :D

Good post, I agree...too bad you watch PBS.

I think that the lead should make the call. Sounds like this was in transition to me (full court press). Until the ball settles in the front court, the lead's primary will extend a little further. Even if you don't agree with that, it is the right call and the lead doesn't even need to be "looking" there to see it. A lead could be reffing a competitive matchup right in front of him that also places his line of sight right at the trap. If the lead see an obvious foul and realizes that the C was not in a position to see it, I think the lead is obligated to call it. If not the lead, perhaps the popcorn guy?

I don't know guys.... seems to me that if we think it's OK for the lead to make this call, we're starting to get into that "ok for anyone to call anywhere on the court" type attitude that is exactly what 3-person is not about.

If I trust my partners in the first quarter, I trust them in the fourth quarter. If the C didn't see it in his primary area and the T didn't see it in his secondary coverage area, then the lead didn't get a good look from the freakin' baseline.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Jan 5th, 2006 at 06:20 PM]

If the L knows what he's doing he is not at the baseline in this play.

Thank God for geography! :D

Z, I'm with you on this one. This is what comes to mind:

1. Some officials will always find a reason to look all over the court.
2. Constantly talking about getting the play right, no matter who calls it, is a clear indication that officials are ball-watching. This statement is one that enables this practice instead of talking about the proper mechanics. Which one will help the next time?
3. I'm really beginning to wonder about some - not all - officials actual experience with 3-person mechanics. There are proper mechanics! Where is the lengthy discussion about that?

I know this doesn't jive with a lot of people's opinions, but this is basketball season. For crying out loud, are we (I know I'm not) going to go out on the court and just have a free-for-all?

Well we are discussing a post that says that the lead was <i>under the basket </i>when he made the call.

The post does not say where all ten players were. If the ball is being brought up court quickly by a guard, I find it hard to believe that there weren't some match-ups that the L was responsible for. Are we to believe that the other 8 players were trailing the ball? I'd say most of them were ahead of the ball, some of them in the L's area of responsibility.

As lead, we see where the T and C are with our peripheral vision or take "peeks." We don't take "looks." I hate buzzwords, but there is a difference between a peek and a look. Why is the L "looking" there?

Z

No matter which direction I'm looking, my vision doesn't stop at some artificial boundary. I may not focus outside of it but I'm not automatically blind beyond that line. If I'm covering guys in the paint and see an obvious mugging beyond my area (and partner was not in position to see it), I'm not doing my job if I don't go get it. Pay attention to the big time refs...while they don't ofter go out of their area, they will do it when there is something big to be called. They pay us to work the game, not play keep out of my sandbox. My goal is not to execute perfect mechanics at the expense of missing a big play but to, first, work the game. This sometimes requires stepping of of the box.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jan 5th, 2006 at 09:00 PM]

Camron, pay attention to the big time refs and you will see that many of them don't follow mechanics. Pay attention to many "big time" college refs and you will see they miss a lot of plays because they are looking all over the place. Go to a camp where a big time ref is the evaluator and see how far you get looking all over the place. Don't do as they do, do as they say-until you get where they are.

I do know exactly what you are saying and tomorrow I will pre-game that we will only stray this far out of our areas on non-basketball plays. I will say these words in your honor. :)

You're usually not this dense Tom.

We're not talking about calling all over the place.

We're talking about an unusual end of game play. Maybe you feel good about telling your partner in the locker room you saw him f@ck this game changing sitch with 5 seconds to go but decided to look the other way.

Not me.

We're not talking about looking all over the place the whole game. We're talking about a last second play where NOTHING was in the lead's area. Should he just close his eyes since there is nothing for him?

First of all, the OP has conveniently not been around to say where the other 7 players were so we don't know what the L should have been looking at. And, I'm not too dense to ignore many past comments about taking a "peek" at three-pointers, fouls and other things. All this adds up to "let's just get it right" meaning if you think it is right forget about primaries. If an official is constantly doing this - hello - he/she is watching the ball.

Maybe the OP was the L in this situation.

Well Tom, it's pretty obvious that you have a low opinion of some of the people who posted in this thread.

Are you saying I'm a ballwatcher? That I call all over the gym? If not me, then who in this thread is a ballwatcher? Which of us do not measure up to the tomegun standards?

Dan, I don't even know anyone that has posted in this thread except Chuck and Brianp. Far too much trust is put into a persons ability to type, read (the rules) and comprehend the meaning of the rules. That does not make someone good in practice. Don't let this whole internet official thing get your drawers in a bind; this isn't about what someone does, rather about a veteran official's philosophy. For my money philosophy is one thing that can be worked away from the court as well as on the court. Who practices something and doesn't try to get it right? IMO, you are doing that by constantly giving reasons for looking all over the court. Things happen, but we should (IMO) try to be mechanically perfect, and the results will be better than if we accept sub-standard practices.

Would you go telling your kids all the wrong things that you did and continue to do? I wouldn't because they will eventually want to try it out a little since "dad" does it.

This is what I'm saying, all this talk about getting it right is giving people a license to ball watch. What is easier to watch the ball or be desciplined enough to watch your primary? I think it is harder to watch the primary but there is someone, somewhere that might look up to you and emulate the things you do and say. They will eventually watch the ball too or should I say they will take a peek? Don't get offended if you think your way is mechanically sound. IMO, it isn't. It doesn't matter if we disagree because the man upstairs has blessed us with geography; you work wherever you are and I work where I am. If our paths cross at a higher level, you can bet your last dollar that I will get there with a mechanically sound philosophy. I am NOT saying that there are never times when you should do something "outside the box." However, far too much time is spent on the reasons why something wrong (mechanically) is done and not enough time on what could have been done to prevent it. For me, that is progress and lessons learned.

I agree with both Tom & Z. I guess this makes us the three amigos.

If you have six eyes on the ball, what is happening with the other players? Whose to say that another foul wasn't missed off the ball? I guess we could play devils advocate on this all day long.

Tommy (may I call you Tommy? ;) ), I think for the most part, we agree. I have worked with officials that call everything, anywhere on the court. And more often than not, they're wrong. That's why the system is in place, that's why there are well-defined areas of coverage - we are more apt to get it right when we stay within the system.

However, (you knew that was coming), in this particular play, there were 10 sec. left in the game, it was a 2 point game, this was a fast-break transition, and the team that was behind lost possesion because of this play. In this case, I'm not advocating ball-watching, but I do think all three officials need to make sure they are aware of everything going on. What's your answer to A's coach when he comes up to the crew after the game and he asks, "How can THREE officials not see something that happened in the open court?". I know the wrong answer would be, "It's not my area, coach". Again, in this case I don't think our credibility went up because one of our partners missed a call, and the other two "did their job" by "staying in their area".

I think that's why jbduke asked the question - I'm going to assume they know if this play happens in the second quarter, it's the C's call to live and die with, the C was in the wrong position, and the T and L have other players to watch. However, in this case, with the game on the line, I would rather the correct call come from someone else, rather than just letting it go in the name of "staying in your area". This would be one of those exceptions to the rule.

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?

Refresh my memory. What part of the state do you live? I am mostly talking about the West Central part of the state because that is where I started. So areas like Peoria and Springfield are in that area. Those areas have pretty much left 2 Person behind. Also the schools usually hire (mostly Class A schools) officials to work both games when they have a 3 Person crew. So just from a financial position they save money when they hire 3 officials for the night rather than 5 officials.

Of course that is what they are going to say. They think we all just watch the ball most of the time anyway. I think from an officiating point of view we have to try to over come that way of thinking. At least in 3 Person I know I have a longer look at a situation than in 2 Person. If I pass on something there is a reason. I hate it when officials make calls when they are not close to the play or saw the very end of a play. I think we have to fight the urge to just make a call just to make a call.

Peace

M&M, I too have been to NCAA-W camps and you are correct in saying that they want the correct call, but I truly believe Marcy Weston & Mary Struckhoff (sp)and collegiate supervisors would have a fit if the lead made this call from 40+ feet. I would think that some officials would be fired on the spot or definitely fined a game check if this were to happen in a college game. I would agree that they would say that the correct call was made but Stevie Wonder should have been able to see this foul from the nose bleed section of the arena.

I'm in east central IL. For the most part, all the Class AA schools are 3-person for varsity, and 2-person below that level. A lot of the Class A schools hire 3, but there are a few that still grumble about it. The ones that hire 2 are Class A. As far as saving money, I'm not sure that's always the case. When I work both games, 3-person, I'm usually paid from $70 - 85. That would be a total outlay for the school of between $240 - 255/game. When I work just the varsity game, the pay is between $50 - 60. So if the 2 JV refs get $35, and the 3 varsity refs get $55, that's a total outlay of $235 for the game, essentially the same. I think the main reason schools hire one crew is the AD makes less phone calls hiring 3 officials rather than 5.

For what it's worth, I asked my good friend if he would make a call in this situation. He is one of the best officials I know that isn't in the NBA and he has worked everything up to D1 and the CBA. He said he would only make this call if it was a non-basketball play (punch or the like). I know it doesn't matter to most because Nevada could be the only one that knows this official, but that is good enough for me!

I would take his advice or word over many people here. I do not even know the man.

Peace

Who is the "man"?

Wow. This thread gained and lost steam in about 24-36 hours if I recall. Then my life got crazy and am away for a few days, and this thread explodes. Sorry I've not been around to clarify the location of the other seven players.

Two players were below the arc in the FC, on the slot's side. The lead was in a closed-down position on the baseline and obviously took a look up-court. Reasonable people can disagree over whether the look was a good idea, but the two players in his neighborhood were no near enough each other to mandate the microscope treatment.

I'm posting this with a couple pages still to catch up on, for whatever that's worth.

You only accounted for 2 of the seven players and you didn't even mention if those two players were teammates or opponents.