Well, maybe this situation wasn't a game saver...but, I observed the following, during a game, and would like some opinions.

Varsity Boys...T and C experienced Officials.

In transition...L running beside play. T just crossing mid-court. C, with good speed, at top of the key extended opposite.
A1 dribbling down the key for a lay-up when B1 makes pretty good contact for a foul on A1. I wouldn't say "hammers A1", but close. (A1 fell to floor and slid into wall)
L puts fist up for foul(but, only for a nano second)...and as ball goes OOB on the endline...L quickly changes call to OOB for Team A. Crowd goes nuts...they want the foul.

What should the other two officials do? If anything?
I'll post what they did or did not do later.

I Edited that A1 slid into wall after "foul".

[Edited by RookieDude on Jan 5th, 2006 at 02:48 PM]

If neither the C nor T had a secondary whistle to go along with the L's whistle, then they do nothing. The Lead judged the contact to be incidental. So C and T will live with that.

If C or T had a whistle for the foul at the same time as the L's whistle, then when the L points OOB, the other partner comes in hard with the fist and whistle and says loudly, "I have the push first!"

I agree that this might look bad because of what you said the officials looked hesitant. There is nothing the other officials can do. They did not make a call. It is safe to say they did not think there was a foul. Apparently the officials that made the call did not believe there was a foul.

I am not sure why some of you guys think other officials should "do something" to bail out another official in these plays. There is still something called "trusting your partner." It sounds to me that this official's partners trusted his decision.

Peace

The T and C came running in and had a huddle with L. The L came out of the huddle with a foul. (His original call)

While that doesn't look good at all...the crew got the call right. It was a foul...it wasn't an OOB call.

I was in the official's room after the game and the L was apologizing all over himself for screwing that up. The T said he should have had the call...but, since he initially saw L's fist go up...he let it go. Then when the L changed his call...he had to come in and fix it.

I agree...at least in this instance...it had to be fixed.

BTW...I was the C. :)

I am sorry but the T should not have apologized for not making that call because he should never have tried to make it. I was taught that the T should not be in a hurry on a transition the play. He should do what his position entitles him to do which is TRAIL the play. Unless all 10 players were in transition and past the midcourt line and the ball was on his and L's side would I even phathom coming in with a call from T.

Here is my cynical side: Rut and refTN, get out, get out right now! Don't you dare bring some sound, tried-and-true philosophies and mechanics into this discussion. Don't you know we are in a "anybody calls anything" world? :D

OK, this is a situation where you get the ball back into play as soon as possible. The huddle, conference or whatever else it was not called for. If you don't have a whistle, I wouldn't want to hear anything from you!

Who did you say was experienced again? :D

Thank you. I get the feeling that a lot of situations here are like this. "Uh, I have this friend (wink) and..."

If the L beckons the T or C for help, by all means go have a conference. If there was a double-whistle, then the trailing official can come in strong and sell a foul. But for the T or C to go to the L to try to get him change his call...... there went the L's credibility out the window.

I have seen partners miss calls before. We all have. We live with it and move on. What made this situation different.....just because the crowd was going nuts? That is irrelevant.

Z

On this one, I'm keeping silent. The lead clearly saw the play and made a decision. I'm not going to go in and tell him to change his call.

All the "experienced officials" here have a sound philosophy on this one, IMO. I guess that's why I posted this sitch.
If any of those here had posted what I posted...I would have probably said the basic same things you vets stated.

For some reason that night...my partner (T) and I (C), big-timed the L. I don't think I have ever changed a partner's call like that. The weird thing about it is...my other partner T, was doing the same thing.

The only redeeming thing is...that the L put up his FIST for a FOUL. We gave him a chance to "keep" his original call.

It's lame...but, the only thing I can think of whithout beating my egotistical self up for. ;)

I am sorry Tommy. I keep trying to bring logic to discussions here. You have set me straight. Hopefully I will be cured from such discussions.

Peace

Lone whistle, others swallow fox 40, getty up on inbounding, I'll back you 110%, talk later.

...and a fine job you do of it, Rut.

Thanks.

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.

I agree...

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.

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,

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!

Get It Right
 

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

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

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

One of these days you will get it.
 

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

Re: One of these days you will get it.
 

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

Re: Re: One of these days you will get it.
 

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

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.

Re: Re: Re: One of these days you will get it.
 

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. :rolleyes:

Z

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. :D

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

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]

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. :D

Well, I would say that it depends of who is doing the assessment of what the "accurate information" is and who is deciding who is just dispensing "total BS". Just because someone disagrees with you, Tom, doesn't automatically make them wrong. Your "accurate information" could be "total BS" to me. Or other people. And vice-versa naturally.

Tom,

This may seem out of the blue, but there's no sense in holding back. . . would you marry me?

Dang it! Now that caused an audible giggle!

LOL, good one Chuck!

How sweet, the first marriage proposal on this board.

I want to get a gift for the happy couple. Where are you two registered? :D

Z

Honig's?

Are yo usaying the L was not experienced?


Good speed by what standards, or are you just patting yourself on the back ?

And just how did this "correction" SAVE the game?

Could you tell me what you are talking about since I wasn't even referring to myself?

Re: Re: Re: Re: One of these days you will get it.
 

My job is not to make people happy with what I say. I tell people all the time if you do not like what I have to say (or anyone else has to say) to ignore the information or person. I cannot turn any conversation into anything. People here cannot take the fact that someone on this earth does not share their since of reality. I will debate my point of view because I can and it is not like you or anyone else can stop me. I know I have no power over what other people say here. Remember, you said that no one pays attention to me here, but ever time I turn around you keep commenting on what I say. I did not address my comments about this topic to you, but you went out of your way to make a point to say "I never agree with Rut but....." You could have kept that statement. I do not care and I am sure a lot of other people could give a damn if you agreed with my point of view.

Z, I am talking in generalities and things specific to what I have experienced. There are always exceptions to any statement. If I said that Black people do not like George Bush there are obviously exceptions to that statement. There is also proof that what I said was mostly true also (voting records, polls, approval ratings, party affiliation). Of course you can find one guy that does not fit what I said. I can tell you if you are wearing belted pants where I live at the college level; you will not be there very long. I am not just speaking for the state of Illinois either. The college assignors I work for assign officials that live in multiple states. There are always exceptions to any statement. Stop taking it so personal. I just made the statement in the first place to push your buttons and I accomplished what I wanted to. I take great humor in the fact that you are so upset over what I say and we live thousands of miles away from each other. I also am not impressed with some guy that lives in a state so far away from this region of the country. Basketball is king here and a lot of what goes on here sets the standards for the rest of the country (not my words, ask those that run other states). So I am sure you would find people that do not fit what I said.

Peace

That's where you are dead wrong dog...there is no way the changed call was made because of the crowd...that's almost laughable.
We may have been dead wrong...but, it wasn't because of the crowd.

Remember T and C never had the call, never raised their fist for a foul, never blow their whistle.

Remember...the L initially raised his fist for the obvious foul...why would the T or C double whistle it?

Listen, again I agree with the bigdogs here on their philosophical approach to this type of sitch. That's why I posted this mess...I wasn't proud of big-timing the less experienced official. (The guy isn't young, but his career has been mostly JV stuff, with a little V sprinkled here and there)
Would we have come in and huddled with a more experienced V official? Probably not...in fact, if I had been the misguided L and my two partners came up to me after the "call"...I wouldn't have been apologizing in the locker room, I would have been somewhat unpleasant.

So...we treated our partner differently than we would have a seasoned veteran. I wouldn't have felt the need to protect and/or embarass the Vet. We did this particular partner...therefore, our bad.

Sure, we got the call right...but, at what expense to a partner?
As a crew, do we get every call right every night? (I haven't seen it yet)
Do we go around huddling and changing things for the "good of the game"? (Sometimes...you just have to know when those "sometimes" are)

These are some of the philosophical questions that, IMO, a good official asks him/herself.

BTW...Coach B, of the fouling team asked me how my partner could change that call? I simply asked him if he thought it was a foul. He said it didn't matter...I looked him in the eyes and asked him again, if he thought it was a foul. He turned and went back to his seat.

When I work with an official at the varsity or college level, I assume they can do the job. I do not under any circumstances treat them any different than someone else. The only way I would do that if I feel they are really struggling, but I just let them call their game. There is a reason they are assigned to the game, it is not my job or my obligation to "save them." Even if I am the vet of the crew, I think it will hinder a younger official if I take control. If they screw up they will not be at that level very much longer. Not saying you did that, I just believe in teamwork and working together.

Peace

I was only in the first step of the rotation, but we actually do rotate quicker than most I've seen in high school. I'm going there -- I may as well get there.

I started the rotation because the ball got passed into the corner with a player posting up. Instead of passing into the post, the player took two dribbles baseline and put up a jumpshot and got nailed.

My partners didn't think it was as big a deal as I did.

Well, I'm working 3 tonight and tomorrow, so lots more practice. Tonight is the first girls game I've ever worked 3-person.

--Rich

Rookie Dude, Why not have a secondary whistle in cadence here? It seems in this situation it would have been great to have a double whistle here. It would have given the crew better credibility, more believability that the foul was actually there, and I also think this L official doesn't drop his foul call. If you can ever help a less "experienced" official by giving him a back-up whistle especially in a late game with a tough call then Please give it.

As RefTN said there are occasions where having a double whistle, or even a triple whistle on rare occasions is a good thing. Our primary goals on the floor are to manage the game and to call the obvious, and those goals often go hand in hand. In my opinion, the design of the 3 person system is to put officials in the right places to call obvious fouls. Coverage areas converge, particularly if there are no competitive matchups, and often the slot or the trail has a better look at a certain play than the lead. When I say I don't advocate ball-watching, I agree with Rut that officials should referee their first competitive matchup and stay within the system, but there are also occasions when other officials simply have a better look.

In this particular situation, as described, we have an OBVIOUS foul at a critical time in the game that the L clearly kicked/talked himself out of. The other officials both had a clear foul and came in late and took it. As described, we're talking about a train wreck type play, and those are game changing plays if nothing is called. Are there times when this can't get called? Sure, if both other officials are occupied in their areas with competitive matchups, but in this case, both clearly saw an obvious foul, and were certain enough of the foul to come in and make the call. I don't see how any official, in good conscious, at the varsity right area or not, can see an obvious foul, with no doubt, at a critical point in the game and swallow the whistle because, "That was his call." Get the play right.

I don't really know why you quoted me, but this play and the result is BS. Since you quoted me, I'm assuming your post was to explain the art of 3-person to me. Next time give me all your information before I leave on a Friday to do a varsity boys and D2 men's game. I'm sure I could have used this before! :rolleyes:

All this "blah, blah, blah" is basically "this is why I watch the ball." In YOUR conscious, you live with watching the ball. I have never, EVER had an evaluator tell me "why didn't you call that call in your partner's area?" They will ask why you are calling out of your area in a heartbeat. The vast majority of the time, I'm looking in MY primary because I don't ref in this wonderful land of OZ that doesn't have anything off-ball for me to look at.

numbers
 

Tomegun,

I am curious - how many offball calls do you make a game? I'm not just curious because it is you or this post. I am just curious as to the number of offball calls made by all officials per game.

Doesn't the NBA or somebody track these kinds of numbers? I have heard that it is a very low number. If the number is low and it is not because of mechanics that the NBA is already stressing, then you might look for mechanics to change in the future about offball calls. That might lead to a less restrictive philosophy on going to help on calls made on the ball. I betcha the numbers made, and missed, of calls on the ball far outweigh all other calls.

It just seems to me that the NBA is a forward thinking trend setter when it comes to training their officials. They are years ahead of college and high school, but a lot of their research ends up trickling down to the high school level.

Just my opinion.

Mulk

Re: numbers
 

Are you serious? You think that because there aren't as many offball calls as onball calls that the philosophy might change to let officials start calling anywhere on the court. Please! Offball fouls are the ones that lead to fights. They are the ones that lead to rough play that is always a POE.

The whole point of 3-person is for officials to call in THEIR area and see the whole play. If we're just going to have all officials watching all over the court and call on-ball, we can just go back to 2 officials. Tomegun is right, some of this justification for "getting the play right" is starting to get absurd and sound like an excuse for being a ball watcher.

Z

Tommy I am not trying to explain 3 person mechanics to you or patronize you in any way. In fact, I agree with basically all you say and I generally agree with you on reading this board. I can't picture an evaluator saying "Why didn't you call that in your partner's area," but evaluators will say to a crew, "Why wasn't there a whistle on that play." I'm not at all advocating not refereeing your primary and always watching the ball, but rather making calls of assist when there is nothing happening in your primary and you are 100% certain, especially if it's potentially game changing. The way I read your post, which could be wrong, is that your opinion is that even if you've got no matchups in your primary and you see your partner miss an obvious foul that you should pass on it because "it's not in my area." I disagree with that philosophy, that's why I quoted you.

The evaluator will ask the official, not the crew.

Re: numbers
 

Like the traveling rule, this is a difference that should be noted about the NBA. They don't call off-ball as much as college and high school. This, IMO, is where entertainment comes in; people don't want to pay big money to have people commit a bunch of off-ball calls. I have been told, at a camp, that this is one reason why the primary areas of coverage can be different in the NBA; it doesn't matter if they are looking out at the 3-point line because if someone is banging in the post it more than likely will NOT be called.

The number of off-ball calls I call during a game is dependant on the players, BUT the best way to be accurate is to watch my primary so I will not call the second foul.

For the most part you are right. I will go anywhere on the court for a non-basketball play. If I have nobody in my primary I will go to the next competitive matchup which many people seem to think is automatically where the ball is. That smells of ball-watching to me. How convenient is it to have all the players in a position where there is nobody in a primary AND the next competitive match-up is on-ball?

We really haven't heard - in neither one of these threads - if the whistle was delayed a beat, which it should be most of the time when making a call in your (all officials') primary.

To each his/her own, but after asking several people, picturing possible situations in my head and thinking about it while I'm on the court (before the games), this line of thinking just isn't for me. I've never been taught to do this and it isn't something I instinctively do. I wouldn't want someone to do it in a game I'm working.

Re: Re: numbers
 

Z,

Yes, I am serious. Why are you so adamant that you are right about helping in these situations? Is it because someone at camp told you you shouldn't make a call from lead out past the f. throw line? Or, is it that you truly believe you can't get a call right from there? Or, is it just the mechanics that you have been taught as of this date? Do you believe in double whistles? Triple whistles?I'm not saying that that the philosophy might CHANGE to let officials call over the floor - I'm saying that it is already in place. I'm also saying that mechanics and philosophies DO change ALL THE TIME. When they change, will your opinion change?

You never answered the question - how many offball calls per game do you make on the average? BTW, I happen to agree with you on this situation and it is because that is the way that I have been taught - today.

Mulk

Re: Re: Re: numbers
 

Having started in this sport almost 20 years ago, I have seen LOTS of things change. The one I laugh the most about is how we used to cross over the floor during a live ball to "get in the Cadillac" position. Can't believe we EVER did that. Now we only do that when the T and C miss a rotation.... :D

One thing I don't think will EVER change -- we will always stress working in a primary of some kind. Will those areas change? Quite possibly -- there is quite a difference between primary areas for the lead in NCAAW than there are in NCAAM, for example. But we will never expect officials to reach and call fouls in another official's primary.

Re: Re: Re: numbers
 

Why am I so adamnant? When three-person was implemented, it was so that officials could call in their own area thereby seeing the WHOLE play. In two-person, we often turn and see the end of the play and then conjecture (which is a nice word for guess). That is taught at camps, in the officials manual, in the 3-person guidebook, and by veterans who understand the 3-person philosophy. In fact, 3-person will EXPOSE ball watchers. If you tended to be a ball-watcher in 2-person, you will struggle with 3-person.

In the original play in this post, we already have two officials who should have seen the foul. The C (primary) and the T (secondary). Who is watching the other players if the lead is also looking there? Where is the teamwork of the crew? Where is the trust? Where is the 3-person?

People can conjecture that the Lead had nothing to watch, but I can't recall any times in a transition situation as was described where I (as lead) didn't have anything to watch so I went up near halfcourt to watch the play on the C's side. It doesn't make sense to me. How can we justify the L making a call 50-feet away when two officials are much closer and have responsibility for that play. If the L can make that call, then forget coverage areas and lets just all watch the ball all night. :(

I would say that my crews make an average of between 3 and 8 offball calls per game. What would happen in the game if those 3-8 calls weren't made? Frustration. Retaliation. Those are GREAT quality calls that mean the difference between a well-played game and a game that can get deteriorate into something ugly.

Double whistles are OK occasionally, but I prefer a delayed whistle from the official who has secondary coverage (the tweet-tweet "echo" thing). A triple whistle? Geez, I hope not... unless maybe it's a held ball in the middle of the key or something. Again, a triple whistle normally exposes a ball-watcher.

Philosophies may change, but off-ball coverage and rough play will ALWAYS be a concern at the high school level. Rough play will was one reason for such a push for 3 officials. Off-ball calls reduce rough play.

Z

Z, most of what you just posted is a part of my pre-game. :D It is amazing how many officials hear what you are saying about a delayed whistle and then there are 8 whistles when the play is clearly in one officials primary. I try (TRY) to get this point across by saying we should try to shrink the grey area. I mean nothing more than letting the proper official call plays that are clearly in their area. For instance, when a player is clearly in the lane on the side opposite the L, it is NOT a grey area. That is the C's primary UNLESS it is a foul that happens on the front side and the C cannot physically see it. Even then, we are talking about a call across the lane, not 50ft! I don't like to constantly have double-whistles on routine plays are are clearly in someone's primary. Add to that illegal picks, post play and RSBQ and the game should flow, but it is a requirement to catch things off-ball. If we don't have a number of off-ball fouls, I question how good of a job my crew did.

Interesting discussion...off-ball calls are a beautiful thing for a crew to have. While I agree with what tomegun and Z are saying in general, I will add this - One of the assigner/commissioners I work for teaches this: there are 3 types of fouls in basketball. 1)"Oh, that's a foul." 2)"Oh my, that's a foul." 3)"OH MY GOD! That's a foul." Anytime there is a foul of the #3 variety, there HAS to be a call, and I really don't give a rat's a$$ whose primary area it happens in...those types of things that are missed and have no call cause way more problems than the run-of-the-mill off-ball illegal screens that are missed.

I thought you were a stickler for proper mechanics and staying out of your partner's primary. The definition of primary is solely dictated by the position of the play, not the direction the players are facing. You've just said you'd call a foul in your partner's primary if you think their angle didn't allow them to see it. hmmm. I knew you weren't so stubborn as your earlier posts on this topic seemed to indicate. ;)