I agree with this for the most part . Good to hear "pinch the paint" C should work to get the best outside /in angle. However if the drive happens quickly and away from the C the angle sometimes can't be seen either by C or L. Again, sometimes if T has most of the players in front of him and refereeing outside in the T could have a very good look @ this play. I didn't say this play was T's secondary because it's not. I gave this as a example why you might have to get a call that is out of your primary. However lets take T out of it and say L gets the foul which is his secondary. It's still a call that needs to be gotten that technically is in C's primary.

What are you talking about?

Lead has the paint to the sideline on his side, beneath the FT line extended.

Trail has EVERYTHING ELSE.

Those are the primaries.

There are prescribed areas of overlap, and mechanics that allow SPECIFIC secondary areas.

In no way does that mean everything not in my primary is my secondary.:rolleyes:

David,

Do not twist what I said. It is not about "new ideas." It is about what works and what has not changed because it works. You are not in a position to start changing things because you do not like the system. Neither am I or most of the people I listed in a position to do what we want to. But when someone tells you a procedure and they are much more experience, it shows a lot of ignorance on your part to say, "You have no idea what you are talking about." Well when you get on the NF committee or the CCA committee, then maybe you will have some credibility on this issue. The current system has worked in my 10 years when used properly and your ideas are not new. Your "new ideas" have been shown as not effective. I should have known better when you tell all of us what the NBA officials are doing wrong. I guess you have credibility to know.

Peace

Wow, this went bad fast - time to circle the wagons.

No one has ever said that you are not to call out of your primary what people have said is that you are best served by calling your primary first and if there is an elephant out there somewhere and you are 150% sure it is an elephant then call it. But you are best served as an individual and a crew to concentrate on your primary are first.

But in a two man crew the chances of all 10 players being out of your primary are pretty slim, so you will have action to concentrate on in your primary.
But per chance if everyone did run to your partners primary your job (the way I have been trained and called for 25 yrs) is that you take the next available or nearest matchup to assist your partner, excluding his primary match up.

Another thing that is very different is that most of us are discussing three man which is different all together from two man
So that we are talking about areas of coverage that are more defined and the transfer of coverage of an areaa is different because you are rotating from side to side as lead and center to trail - this makes coverage of your area even more important.

There are many ways of doing things and the mechanics of the game are always evolving, they have changed philosophys several times in the last five years, not to mention the different conference philosophys on mechanics - So when people who are in a position to know what assignors at the upper levels are looking for in officials who wish to advance it is a good idea to take heed and listen to their advice, rather than be the camper who says "yes but" and defend a position that no matter how technically right you might be you can not win because Diane Plas, Ed Bilik, or Mr. Lavender, want you to do it this way on their floors, in their conferences.

That is the way you have to do things.
It isn't personal it's business!

Drinkeii, you are obviously very passionate about this officiating world we all live in...sometimes that passion can lead us to go to ridiculous lengths to try to defend our positions. That would be where you have gone in this thread...as has been stated several times now, there WILL be times when something outside my primary area has to be called - for the good of the game. But those times will be few and far between and I absolutely should NOT be going out and looking for things to call in my partner's primary...think of it this way - there are three types of fouls: 1) Oh, that's a foul...2) Oh my, that's a foul...and 3) OH MY GOD!! That's a foul...#3 is absolutely the ONLY one you should ever have to go and get in a partner's primary area...leave the rest of them alone and trust that your partner is taking care of his/her business.

So where does "YOU CAN'T F'ING DO THAT??!!" fall in this ordering? Between 2 & 3? after 3?

Exactly the same thing... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - problem is it not "unbroke". Why would the NFHS constantly have points of emphasis for the rules, if everything was going just fine. Why would it have moved from 2 man to 3 man for the most part at this point if it worked? Why have some sports gone to instant replay if what we have worked? Why are they changing, updating, adding, and removing several rules every year? I guess they're not perfect, just like the mechanics aren't.

I was very careful not to use the word "new" - i'm sure I don't have new ideas. I'm just saying that because that is the way that someone some where said works and that, not because it is presumably the best way, is why we are doing it.

I don't claim to have any more credibility than having worked for a while. You say 10 years - I have been reffing sports for 8. So you have 2 more years than me, and a job with more responsibility in that regard (assignor). I'm not saying you have less credibility, or that your system is bad. I am saying there is more than one way to do something, and sometimes yours works, sometimes mine works. As someone else said, even the mechanics are constantly evolving.

If everyone simply did stuff because "that's what everyone does" and "that's what works", we'd be in an awful lot of trouble.

No, basketball is not a life or death, or life-changing type of activity. But to do something simply because and only for the reason that someone told them it is the right thing to do is wrong. Hopefully, you can think more for yourself than to just do what "someone", or several "someones" told you to do. I wouldn't expect you to do what I say. But I wouldn't expect you to just throw out my ideas, or anyone elses, simply because "that isn't how it is done".

The world would cease to ever get better if we always just said "That's just the way we've always done it, so it's the way we're always going to do it.". Better throw three-man out the window - two man was perfect.

Ha...you say tomato, I say tu-mah-toe...my #3 and your vulgar statement would be the same thing - you just happen to be more uncouth than I...:D

I just got back from a college game and guess what? Nobody made a call that was right in front of someone else. It was a good game too. The home team was up by 19 at halftime and it went into overtime (It is too early in the season for that). We had a little bit of everything in the game and I finally (it has only been two games, but some would say that is a long time for me :D) called my first T in Miss. :D A kid blocked a shot and wanted to get up in the kid's face. He said, "But I didn't say anything." Yeah, whatever WHACK!

David & Gimlet, many people have put a lot of work into making this 3-man system the best it can be - for right now. After 6 years of MS and JV ball you can't possibly have a good enough handle on this thing to know something better to do. That is what I believe.

Good to hear you had a good game.! "T" already & a OT! To address your comment...I have worked longer then six years and I don't work MS or any JV ball. I work @ all 3 levels of College basketball. My original comment to Dave was that it's not black and white that there are times that you would have to make a call out of your primary....which I believe all of my posts details. I also said that the mechanics end of calling 3 is there for a reason. It gives the officials a guideline to be in the best possible position to have the best look @ any given play to make the best possible call. My answer to Dave's OP is that most of the time you stay in your primary, but there are times you have to come out to get plays (WHALES). However rarely it might be it still happens. Then most of the posts that came in were suggesting that somehow thats condoling "ball watching"

Well said. Exactly the point I've been trying to get across.

Congrads!!!! It sounds like you give a lot of time to officiate. I'm sure your experience's far outway mine. Your comment agree's with what I've been saying all along. If you come out and into your partners primary you better be 100% correct. I TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!

And that is the statement made by anyone who is used to a system and refuses to look at possible changes to it for whatever reason.

Just because it is the way we've always done it doesn't make it the right way to do it or the best way to do it or the only way to do it.

I'm not advocating major changes - I'm saying we need to be willing to call (and accept calls) from partners that are outside their arbitrarily defined area of responsibility. As I said, if the mechanics were so important to the integrity of the game, they would include them in the rules, and say "This official has the right to call anything in their area, and nothing outside their area". They define everything else very exactly in the rules, and if it is THAT important, maybe it should be in there. Or maybe, because it isn't that important, or because they feel officials should have the right to call anything anywhere (and I'm not saying you should all the time...but the option is there if necessary), that is what the rules say. Seriously - if it is THAT important that you stay only in your area, have them put it in the rules. Then no one would call outside their area because they're not allowed to.

And don't come back with "Go ahead and call stuff everywhere, see what happens" - that is just a silly response.

I'm curious as to what the outcome of ONE game where no one called outside their area has to do with this discussion?

David, go ahead and call stuff everywhere and see what happens.

Seriously.

Give it a try and let us know how it works out.

That definitely explains the reason this conversation went the way it did - people not reading posts, understanding them, and replying in an intelligent manner. At no time have I ever advocated this. However, apparently that is what you think occasionally reaching out into areas the mechanics-gods have defined as off limits (or the basketball will explode, mass chaos everywhere, end-of-the-world stuff will happen) means - call everything everywhere.

I think I'm done with this thread.

The board in general is very useful for clearing things up. However, when people make decisions based simply on "that is the way we do things", I have a bit of a problem with that. I have with everything I have done, including several emergency service volunteer jobs I have been involved in for close to 20 years, teaching, and several other things. Just because it is the way it has always been done, doesn't make it right. Period. End of story. Thanks for the input.