How far will you go to save a game (PART 2)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by refTN

We do need to come up with a new as I guess we are saying on here "buzzword" for not letting the L and C handle a transition play and instead let the T call one from about 60 ft. away. How about "I wish I was more involved in this transition so I will leave the 4 players that are in the backcourt alone and sprint all the way to the other end just in the hopes that I will get to make a call Mentality". Yeah I think we have just started a new one, or it could be that this has been going on for years and years and I just don't know it.

Nope, there's obviously nothing that you don't already know. And from the conversation above, it sure sounds like the rest of your crew knows everything also.

[SMEngmann]

It looks like I'm gonna be the lone voice of dissent here, but our job is to get the plays right, and how it looks is totally secondary to getting the play right, particularly if it is a key play. If there's a blatant, game changing play that a partner misses, it is the crew's responsibility to get the play right. Letting a partner live or die with a blatantly bad call, is not only killing your credibility as a crew, but it is also eliminating your control of the game. That line, in a game changing situation is an excuse for not doing what's right for the game, because it looks bad.

Now am I advocating ball watching the whole time and calling out of your area all the time? Of course not. If there's any doubt at all, let your partner take the call, but if there's no doubt, AND your partner is uncertain, as he clearly was in this case, and it's obvious, it's gotta get called. In this case 2 officials both thought that the L goofed bigtime and helped him out, good officiating.

Consider what happens if the call isn't made. Now you've introduced an atmosphere of negative emotion. A1 who got fouled may get frustrated and foul hard on the other end, fueled by the anger in the building. Coach A may become a problem as well for the rest of the game. There are certain calls in every game that define the night, calls that have to be made, if the call is one of those, and it's obvious, go help out. Talk about credibility, but how will all of you feel when you see the tape and see that you screwed up the game because nobody helped out. I was talking the other day to a state final official who told me a story of a buzzer beating shot that determined the state-title. The calling official correctly counted the basket and on the jumbotron as they were leaving the court they saw the play and that they got it right. However, the lead official on that game told me, and I totally agree, that had they seen conclusive proof on the replay that the shot was late, he would've wiped it off if it meant he'd never do another game. Charlie Range did similar and was suspended. Lead officials get the plays right regardless of the consequences.

[tomegun]

SME,

Please don't think you can slip that one past us! Charlie Range did something that changed the game of basketball (college at least) but that is not the same thing as watching the ball. He used the monitor before it was accepted. I have been to his camp and I know for sure he would not advocate 3 sets of eyes on the ball and doing what many believe is good officiating on this board. Don't connect the two; they aren't the same.

Just because you include a sentence saying you aren't doing it doesn't mean you aren't advocating ball-watching. You are! A long, long time ago I had a similar situation happen during a game (a military tournament). I saw a play from the start and made my call. My "partner" came to me and said he had a foul on the other player, even though he didn't have a whistle. I looked at him, in amazement, and told him to go report it. This guy had the nerve to go to the table and report a foul that he never had!

When I'm not being cynical, I have had many situations that haven't turned out right. That is why I know the best thing to do is have a comfortable crew and let other officials call their game. If I was the coach of the other team on these plays we have been talking about lately, I would throw a fit, and rightfully so. You cannot throw good mechanics out the window. Doing so gives younger officials a license to do this the whole game. It isn't good for us to say this all the time on the board. There are exceptions; saying getting it right is the most important thing is not the right thing to say every time someone is ball watching!

[alfreedog]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
It looks like I'm gonna be the lone voice of dissent here, but our job is to get the plays right, and how it looks is totally secondary to getting the play right, particularly if it is a key play. If there's a blatant, game changing play that a partner misses, it is the crew's responsibility to get the play right. Letting a partner live or die with a blatantly bad call, is not only killing your credibility as a crew, but it is also eliminating your control of the game. That line, in a game changing situation is an excuse for not doing what's right for the game, because it looks bad.

Now am I advocating ball watching the whole time and calling out of your area all the time? Of course not. If there's any doubt at all, let your partner take the call, but if there's no doubt, AND your partner is uncertain, as he clearly was in this case, and it's obvious, it's gotta get called. In this case 2 officials both thought that the L goofed bigtime and helped him out, good officiating.

Consider what happens if the call isn't made. Now you've introduced an atmosphere of negative emotion. A1 who got fouled may get frustrated and foul hard on the other end, fueled by the anger in the building. Coach A may become a problem as well for the rest of the game. There are certain calls in every game that define the night, calls that have to be made, if the call is one of those, and it's obvious, go help out. Talk about credibility, but how will all of you feel when you see the tape and see that you screwed up the game because nobody helped out. I was talking the other day to a state final official who told me a story of a buzzer beating shot that determined the state-title. The calling official correctly counted the basket and on the jumbotron as they were leaving the court they saw the play and that they got it right. However, the lead official on that game told me, and I totally agree, that had they seen conclusive proof on the replay that the shot was late, he would've wiped it off if it meant he'd never do another game. Charlie Range did similar and was suspended. Lead officials get the plays right regardless of the consequences.

SME as a co-official I do understand what you are saying, I do agree with getting a call right. What you are advocating is a good thing, but not always the right thing.
One call should not define any night relating to any game. What happen in this situation does not have anything to do with getting the call right. There wasn't a foul call made so how can you get it right. The foul never occured according to the other two officials. I think it was more of a persuasiveness then getting it right. What I think happen was he raised his arm first thinking there was a foul and then realizing there wasn't enough contact and changing his close fist to raised hand and saying out of bounce. As he does this he reassures himself and say lets get going with the OOB. Then here comes the two "experience" officials extending unintended pressure and he caves for they are "experienced". See he would not have did anything if that was a young official coming to him.
The T and C were wrong dead wrong, caving into the pressure of the crowd. Remember T and C never had the call, never raised their fist for a foul, never blow their whistle.
I am curious what did B coach have to say after you guys made L change his call. For you did not any rule justifying your actions. If so please improve my knowledge

[JRutledge]

I have not been in every discussion about this or pay attention to every single detail. I am just have to say something about one thing in this thread. I do not think our job is to get it right at all costs. Our job is to make solid calls that we can see and cover the things that are in our primary. If there is nothing going on in our area, we can extend our coverage, but it is not our job to call the game for our partners. There is a reason there are 3 officials on the court (at least in this example). If we all are looking at the same thing, then we do not need 3 of us our there. Get the call right does not mean every call we have to make. Get the call right would mean if we have a double foul, false double foul, correctable error or a very obvious rule violation, that we apply the rules properly. When it comes to judgment calls, we cannot agree on every call. Let the official that saw the entire play call their game.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I have not been in every discussion about this or pay attention to every single detail. I am just have to say something about one thing in this thread. I do not think our job is to get it right at all costs. Our job is to make solid calls that we can see and cover the things that are in our primary. If there is nothing going on in our area, we can extend our coverage, but it is not our job to call the game for our partners. There is a reason there are 3 officials on the court (at least in this example). If we all are looking at the same thing, then we do not need 3 of us our there. Get the call right does not mean every call we have to make. Get the call right would mean if we have a double foul, false double foul, correctable error or a very obvious rule violation, that we apply the rules properly. When it comes to judgment calls, we cannot agree on every call. Let the official that saw the entire play call their game.

Peace

Not only do I agree (gulp) with Rut on this one, but he explained it pretty well.

Z

[tomegun]

Originally posted by zebraman

Not only do I agree (gulp) with Rut on this one, but he explained it pretty well.

Z

You agree because it is sound, fundamental and mechanically correct.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman

Not only do I agree (gulp) with Rut on this one, but he explained it pretty well.

Z

I did not get to where I am in officiating by doing things that are not taught or are not fundamentally sound. You do not agree with me, you agree with the mechanics and teachings of officiating. I am just repeating what most good officials teach.

One of these days you will understand that a lot of what is said is not about the person, it is about the philosophies that officials much greater than you or I teach on a regular basis.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

One of these days you will understand that a lot of what is said is not about the person, it is about the philosophies that officials much greater than you or I teach on a regular basis.
Peace

I have understood that since I started officiating Rut.

What you don't understand is that teaching and discussion can take place and be much more effective without acting like a jerk. Your message usually gets lost because you are so caustic.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


I have understood that since I started officiating Rut.

What you don't understand is that teaching and discussion can take place and be much more effective without acting like a jerk. Your message usually gets lost because you are so caustic.

Z

Here is the thing. It is only internet officials like you that call me a jerk. I actually teach, mentor and work with officials all the time in real life and in person. There are very few people that I do not get along with. It is usually fellow officials that have given me opportunities by talking to assignors for me, calling a coach for a recommendation on my behalf or asked me to come along with them to work a very big game when they could have asked 1000 other people.

Obviously whatever I say to here you take it personally. You have spent about 10 posts in the past week just to focus on something I said. You are not the best official I have ever seen. You are just another person on this board that is talking basketball. For all I know you would never be considered an elite official where I live. Hell, you get mad when people make a reference to wearing belted pants, something you hardly ever see by any varsity or college official.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally posted by tomegun
SME,

Please don't think you can slip that one past us! Charlie Range did something that changed the game of basketball (college at least) but that is not the same thing as watching the ball. He used the monitor before it was accepted. I have been to his camp and I know for sure he would not advocate 3 sets of eyes on the ball and doing what many believe is good officiating on this board. Don't connect the two; they aren't the same.

Just because you include a sentence saying you aren't doing it doesn't mean you aren't advocating ball-watching. You are! A long, long time ago I had a similar situation happen during a game (a military tournament). I saw a play from the start and made my call. My "partner" came to me and said he had a foul on the other player, even though he didn't have a whistle. I looked at him, in amazement, and told him to go report it. This guy had the nerve to go to the table and report a foul that he never had!

When I'm not being cynical, I have had many situations that haven't turned out right. That is why I know the best thing to do is have a comfortable crew and let other officials call their game. If I was the coach of the other team on these plays we have been talking about lately, I would throw a fit, and rightfully so. You cannot throw good mechanics out the window. Doing so gives younger officials a license to do this the whole game. It isn't good for us to say this all the time on the board. There are exceptions; saying getting it right is the most important thing is not the right thing to say every time someone is ball watching!

The one thing that has been difficult for me making the transition from 2-person to three person is remembering that in transition I am fortunate enough to have TWO partners who, essentially, have everything going to the hoop. I don't have to sprint down the floor and can TRAIL like I'm supposed to.

Last night I reached across the lane (as the L) and called a foul that was CLEARLY in the C's primary. The only excuse I can make is that I had taken my first step in rotating and whistle went before mind. I even looked up at the new T (who called the foul) as I was administering the throws and said, "That's a fine on me" and then proceeded to buy most of the drinks after the game.

While I'm a reIative newbie in 3-person officiating (probably less than 50 games lifetime) I think this thread illustrates pretty well that you have to have 2 things in a 3-person game even stronger than you have in a 2-person game -- belief in the system and belief in your partners. Easy for me to say, I have worked every game with the same 2 people this season (some 2-person, some 3-person).

As the trail in transition (back to the OP), I can't imagine calling a play in the L's primary. I have the L in place and if the players get turned and are facing opposite the L, the C is right there, too. I'll help on the rebounding or if the ball is kicked out.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Here is the thing. It is only internet officials like you that call me a jerk. I actually teach, mentor and work with officials all the time in real life and in person. There are very few people that I do not get along with. It is usually fellow officials that have given me opportunities by talking to assignors for me, calling a coach for a recommendation on my behalf or asked me to come along with them to work a very big game when they could have asked 1000 other people.

Obviously whatever I say to here you take it personally. You have spent about 10 posts in the past week just to focus on something I said. You are not the best official I have ever seen. You are just another person on this board that is talking basketball. For all I know you would never be considered an elite official where I live. Hell, you get mad when people make a reference to wearing belted pants, something you hardly ever see by any varsity or college official.

Peace

First of all, I couldn't give a rats patootie about what happens in your social reffing life outside of here. I don't work games in your area. I only deal with you on this board. So how well you get along with all your cronies is completely irrelevant to anyone who is here regularly. The experiences you have there have the potential to be helpful here, but they aren't because you go off on these long rambles that nobody understands and you turn a lot of posts into pissing contests. As much as you blow yourself on here, you must be pretty insecure about your ability.

Second of all, I don't own a pair of belted pants. I haven't since about my third year of officiating. However, I think it's REALLY ignorant to look at any official and draw any conclusions about their ability based on whether or not they wear belted pants. As long as they look neat and clean, it's irrelevant. One of the officials that worked a 4A boys semi-final here in Washington (and worked the girls 3A state final the year prior) wears belted pants. He also does college ball. Oh my goodness.

Z

[tomegun]

Again, what Rut is saying makes sense. This is just an exchange of information; it isn't a marriage proposal! You cannot measure someone's delivery accurately when typed. Also, who is to say someone doesn't want to take the path of least resistance which could be typing the essentials? What would you rather have: someone who gives accurate information bluntly, or a nice, rosy delivery of total BS?

I also agree that this discussion board does not evaluate the skills of an official; it does evaluate someone's typing skills.

I would love to have a camp type environment for officials on this board. Otherwise, thank God for geography!

[zebraman]

Originally posted by tomegun
What would you rather have: someone who gives accurate information bluntly, or a nice, rosy delivery of total BS?

That's almost like asking what I would rather have in a partner, rules knowledge or court presence. I expect both!

It doesn't take a genius to know how to type accurate information without being a jerk and hitting people over the head with a sledgehammer, but it does take a little intelligence. To make your point with no tact at all takes next to no intelligence.

Z

[Edited by zebraman on Jan 6th, 2006 at 01:04 PM]

[tomegun]

Rich, I think your situation was different for many reasons. The fact that you began a rotation and knew what you had done goes a long way. In the half-court, the L must protect the T and C's front (basket) side and they must protect the L's back side. I also took note that you looked where you were going in the rotation. It was also probably a reason for the rotation. That is why I'm not totally opposed to an accelerated rotation. We have a reason for rotating and many times we look at it. Why not get over there as quick as possible? The faster we get over there, the sooner the new C will focus one their primary. If we go slower, the soon-to-be C might not pick up the new primary and the L is looking where they are going.

Although it still isn't technically correct, I think the (your) outlook is very good. Trust me when I tell you, I have been in just about every screwed up situation possible.