Post Play

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by RonRef

Chuck, are you a ball watcher then?

There are lots of 3-pointers in the gray area. There are lots of screens above the 3-point line where the C has to help with the arriving screener so he is looking into the T's area.

If you look at past discussions about "getting the play right," I am one who does not agree with the "get the play right" philosophy when it means that officials are not taking care of their own primary coverage areas.

However, there are times when we see through our own area and get a great look. There are also many times when the T's primary area is the C's secondary area (and vice versa). There are also times when the C has nothing in his area and the T's area is full of players and it's obvious that the T needs help.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by zebraman

There are lots of 3-pointers in the gray area. There are lots of screens above the 3-point line where the C has to help with the arriving screener so he is looking into the T's area.

If you look at past discussions about "getting the play right," I am one who does not agree with the "get the play right" philosophy when it means that officials are not taking care of their own primary coverage areas.

However, there are times when we see through our own area and get a great look. There are also many times when the T's primary area is the C's secondary area (and vice versa). There are also times when the C has nothing in his area and the T's area is full of players and it's obvious that the T needs help.

We can come up with this and that and this and that all day, we just need to make sure that we are covering our primary areas first. I am not saying we shouldn't help out our partners and get the call right. I am saying if this happens a lot I am going to ask the question "what are you doing looking in my area all the time when you have you own area to watch?" Trust your partner and work the system.

[RonRef]

Suppose I am. Are you saying that I should intentionally fail to correct an obvious error simply b/c I'm not "supposed" to be looking at it?
***Never, but why are you looking there?

Or are you saying that as the C, you never help out on a 2/3 point attempt near the top of the circle, even if it's in the T's primary?
***If I am a supervisor I would ask why do we have 2 pair of eyes on a 3 point attempt!

Or are you saying that you should be so focused on your one matchup in the C that you disregard the rest of the court?
***The rest of the court has two other officials working it, trust your partners.

Or are you saying that it's not possible to have a good look at another area of the court while "looking through" that matchup?
***That "looking through" gives you a 100% look to see if your partner missed a foot on the line?

Or are you simply saying that you think I'm an elitist prick? [/QUOTE]
***Are you?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by RonRef

Are you saying that I should intentionally fail to correct an obvious error simply b/c I'm not "supposed" to be looking at it?
***Never, but why are you looking there?

Who knows? Maybe all 10 players are on the opposite side of the court. It happens. Maybe I'm having a brain cramp. Maybe I'm keeping an eye on a couple of troublemakers and they're on a coverage boundary. There are several reasons that I could be looking there; some good ones and some not good ones. The point of the previous discussion is merely that you saw it.

Or are you saying that as the C, you never help out on a 2/3 point attempt near the top of the circle, even if it's in the T's primary?
***If I am a supervisor I would ask why do we have 2 pair of eyes on a 3 point attempt!

Honestly, I don't think a college supervisor would ask that.

Or are you saying that you should be so focused on your one matchup in the C that you disregard the rest of the court?
***The rest of the court has two other officials working it, trust your partners.

As I already pointed out, there are legitimate reasons for expanding your coverage area.

Or are you saying that it's not possible to have a good look at another area of the court while "looking through" that matchup?
***That "looking through" gives you a 100% look to see if your partner missed a foot on the line?

Possibly. Are you saying you can't be sure of anything you see beyond the matchup you're watching?

Or are you simply saying that you think I'm an elitist prick?
***Are you?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I'm not elitist.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by RonRef

***If I am a supervisor I would ask why do we have 2 pair of eyes on a 3 point attempt!

I work for several different college supervisors, and have NEVER been asked that question in relation to fixing a 3/2 point shot...their concern is always that we - as a crew - get the call right.

And Chuck, I believe we've already established that you are definitely NOT elitist.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

...their concern is always that we - as a crew - get the call right.

Gee, somehow I can kinda agree with them too.

Do they really care how you get the call right?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, somehow I can kinda agree with them too.

Do they really care how you get the call right?

Not particularly - speaking of this particular play, anyway. My main supervisor has stated repeatedly "Just fix it and keep the damn game going."

[mick]

In my experience these things have happened to me:

1. Partner wasn't sure and looked to me.
2. Partner neither signaled 'three', nor signaled 'close two'.

In those instances, I do not need to have a discussion with partner. I can simply signal my partner, or I can tell the table that "The last shot was a three."
There is no reason for anything else.

If it ever happens that my partner signals (two or three) points, the number of which I definitively disagree, then I would feel remiss if I did not blow the whistle and ask my partner to rethink his call. This is why:

• My whistle, shortly after my partner's signal, should closely correspond with the timing of the reaction (of the fans, players and coaches). With the dead ball and a quick chat, I have just enabled my partner (and crew) avoid an *Owee*.

More often than not (my games), it is has been pre-gamed that if one partner goes to another partner for "anything", then a call will be changed (for good or bad) because there will be no lenghty discussion out on the floor. It is the singular responsibilty of the partner (who suggests the change) to be right.

I have had instances when a partner (who is listening to a coach or fans) has stopped a game and told me that "they" (coaches, fans) thought differently. That really irks me, but other than that it changes nothing, except for noting the trust that my partner has for me.

mick

[JRutledge]

Some people need to actually read the CCA Mechanics books. The center of the court is considered a dual area for 3 point shots. At least that is the way it is on the Men's side. So yes, two officials might rule on a 3 point attempt.

Also the way JR wants a dispute to be handled on shots that are either 2 or 3 point shots is totally against every way I have been told to handle those conflicts. In every college camp I have attended (and HS camp as well) over the past few years. We have been taught to just correct it without a conference. You also only correct a shot when you are 100% sure you have something different. If you are not sure, you leave it alone.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I work for several different college supervisors, and have NEVER been asked that question in relation to fixing a 3/2 point shot...their concern is always that we - as a crew - get the call right.

In fact you're more likely to hear "HOW COME NO ONE CAUGHT THAT??!!!!"

And Chuck, I believe we've already established that you are definitely NOT elitist.

errrr...is "tall" an alternate meaning for elitist?