Coverage Areas

[Gimlet25id]

Well if you are talking about no-brainer calls, you sure do not know how to admit that. Also remember what is considered a "no-brainer" call is very subjective

.
My no brainers are the calls that are excessive contact, backside illegal screens that cause the defender to hit the ground, collisions with bodies on the floor, ETC., ETC.

I work a lot of 3 man mechanics. There is a lot to watch when you have 3 officials working the game. Most of the time I am officiating I am never watching anything that goes on in my partner's area. Of course there are dual areas or I see one part of the play and my partner sees another part, but I definitely am not watching for a long period of time in my partners area. Many times if I see something in my partner's area, I did not see the entire play.

Your correct in what you are doing. Let me give you a play and tell me what you think. Your C opposite table, the ball is above free throw line extended outside the 3 point line in T's primary between the 3 point line and sideline. Above the free throw line, near opposite free throw lane line, just below the top of the key. ( Trails primary area) You see a back side offensive screener who slides into a defender going to the ball and knocks that player down. T is still refereeing the ball match up. Who's call is this. even though it happens in T's primary?

I went to a pretty big time camp this summer for the first time. I have been to other D1 camps but this is one I attended was had people all over the country, not just a region. I got ripped apart for making a call as the trail official deep into the lead's coverage area. The evaluator asked my partner what did he see on the call. He responded that he had nothing that he thought warranted a foul.

This isn't my definition of a no brianer call. If the clinician has to go to the L and ask if he had anything then you know it was a call you should've laid off. Because if it was a no brianer then your partner and the clinician would've thanked you for getting it. Suppose the play you had here was a player getting hammered to the floor and lead didn't get it. Then you came in and got it. Hopefully your understanding what I'm getting @.

And it was said over and over again at this camp about trusting your partner and working as a team. I was not the only person that was made an example of as it related to this kind of situation, but that does not fit the point of view you are spouting off on this site.

You see I'm not saying that you shouldn't trust your partners because you should. What started all of this was someone saying you should never come out of your primary. I was merely saying that isn't always true. Most of the time yoou won't. But there are times you have to like the play I listed earlier. You have primary and secondary areas of coverage. You secondary will always over lap your partners area.

If you happen to maybe consider this philosphy and the next time you go to a college camp and your on a game with maybe lessor experienced officials and the contact I'm referring to happens, & you step up and come in and get the call....watch what the clinicians say then.

Supervisors @ the collegiate level will tell you that if there is excessive contact that causes players to go down hard and there is no whistle, they say when the coach calls them they can't defend the official because a whistle wasn't made. If a call would've been made right or wrong call they can defend. They can't defend the no call.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is never an instance where calling out of your primary is not only okay, but the correct thing to do.

But what is being suggested is that partners sometimes go fishing for guppies, when the catch needs to be a great white.

Does it? Are there not times, especially in two-person, when it's proper to expand one's coverage into our partner's area and make regular old foul calls?

There's a really good discussion struggling to break free of the morass, if we could all get past the baloney about "you just want to ball watch" and "your ego is too big." Any bets on whether it succeeds?

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Does it? Are there not times, especially in two-person, when it's proper to expand one's coverage into our partner's area and make regular old foul calls?

There's a really good discussion struggling to break free of the morass, if we could all get past the baloney about "you just want to ball watch" and "your ego is too big." Any bets on whether it succeeds?

We breakdown the court as follows in 2 man:

Lead paint to near sideline below FT line extended, unless lead comes ballside and then they get on ball match up below FT line extended...trail swings high to help on backside of lane and leads primary...so there is one instance where trail is "helping" in leads primary.

Trail has ball high in their primary, lead extends to help off ball below FT line extended opposite...so here is an instance where lead is "helping" in trails primary.

Most officials will take the ball on a drive from their primary to the basket, I pre game on ball defender to the hoop, partner officiates the help defender coming from their primary.

Ball high in the lane area and the play that curls away from lead farther down, trail will help with the topside defenders.

But none of these situations are the same as making that call from lead at mid court opposite or trail calling something in leads corner...they are mechanically sound "secondary" areas, pre gamed and expected as good court coverage in two whistle.

Knowing when to be "helping" is key, and needs to be understood completely by both officials...or all 3...to propose a we must "get it right" by reaching willie-nillie all over the court, isn't helping or "saving the game/crew", it's hurting it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

We breakdown the court as follows in 2 man:

Lead paint to near sideline below FT line extended, unless lead comes ballside and then they get on ball match up below FT line extended...trail swings high to help on backside of lane and leads primary...so there is one instance where trail is "helping" in leads primary.

Trail has ball high in their primary, lead extends to help off ball below FT line extended opposite...so here is an instance where lead is "helping" in trails primary.

Most officials will take the ball on a drive from their primary to the basket, I pre game on ball defender to the hoop, partner officiates the help defender coming from their primary.

Ball high in the lane area and the play that curls away from lead farther down, trail will help with the topside defenders.

But none of these situations are the same as making that call from lead at mid court opposite or trail calling something in leads corner...they are mechanically sound "secondary" areas, pre gamed and expected as good court coverage in two whistle.

Knowing when to be "helping" is key, and needs to be understood completely by both officials...or all 3...to propose a we must "get it right" by reaching willie-nillie all over the court, isn't helping or "saving the game/crew", it's hurting it.

Well said!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

My no brainers are the calls that are excessive contact, backside illegal screens that cause the defender to hit the ground, collisions with bodies on the floor, ETC., ETC.

Once again a very subjective statement you are making. Just because bodies collided, does not mean there was a foul or that there needs to be something called. If bodies fall to the ground, I want to know why. If I did not see something, I definitely do not want to just make something up.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

Your correct in what you are doing. Let me give you a play and tell me what you think. Your C opposite table, the ball is above free throw line extended outside the 3 point line in T's primary between the 3 point line and sideline. Above the free throw line, near opposite free throw lane line, just below the top of the key. ( Trails primary area) You see a back side offensive screener who slides into a defender going to the ball and knocks that player down. T is still refereeing the ball match up. Who's call is this. even though it happens in T's primary?

What is going on in the C's area? I do not know about you, but I can see a screen in my coverage area when I have the ball in my area. If you referee the defense, you can see a screen develop. Also, a screen is often not a “no-brainer” call in my opinion. Most screens that are illegal are often iffy at best.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

This isn't my definition of a no brianer call. If the clinician has to go to the L and ask if he had anything then you know it was a call you should've laid off. Because if it was a no brianer then your partner and the clinician would've thanked you for getting it. Suppose the play you had here was a player getting hammered to the floor and lead didn't get it. Then you came in and got it. Hopefully your understanding what I'm getting @.

The reason I told this story was to illustrate how people in two different positions can see different things. I thought the foul was a "no-brainer" and my partner did not. Then because I was out of my area, it was something that came to the attention of the evaluator.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

You see I'm not saying that you shouldn't trust your partners because you should. What started all of this was someone saying you should never come out of your primary. I was merely saying that isn't always true. Most of the time yoou won't. But there are times you have to like the play I listed earlier. You have primary and secondary areas of coverage. You secondary will always over lap your partners area.

I do not recall anyone using the term "never" when they talked about calling outside of their coverage area. I do recall that there are people saying not to go out of your way to make calls in your partner's area. Give your partner a chance to make a call that they clearly can see.

If you have a quote then we can go on from there, but stop saying people said something they did not say.

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

If you happen to maybe consider this philosphy and the next time you go to a college camp and your on a game with maybe lessor experienced officials and the contact I'm referring to happens, & you step up and come in and get the call....watch what the clinicians say then.

Supervisors @ the collegiate level will tell you that if there is excessive contact that causes players to go down hard and there is no whistle, they say when the coach calls them they can't defend the official because a whistle wasn't made. If a call would've been made right or wrong call they can defend. They can't defend the no call.

I am not sure what camps you attend, but you go to camp to prove your ability, not to help a lesser official out. This is much more the case a camp than it ever will be in a regular game. I am not going to camp to show I can call a foul out of another partner's area. Also not one evaluator at this camp I referred to suggested anything you have suggested. Now all of them were D1 officials or D1 evaluators. So I will take their advice on what to do. Also when there was this "excessive contact" you keep trying to refer to, they got on the official that missed the call in their primary. They did not get on official that had other things to watch in those situations. Maybe this philosophy works where you live, it does not where I am. If it works for you, more power to you. I am not adopting a philosophy that I feel does not show unity amongst a crew or shows you give your crew member the benefit of the doubt.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Yep, I did. For some reason I remembered you as having made that observation. I was wrong. After some searching I discovered that it was actually zebraman who said: "referee locally and be aware globally" My apologies.

Yeah, I can attest that tomegun is one of the strictest adherents to the "stay in your primary" philosophy in the officiating community. Now let me add that despite his being a skilled referee, I believe that this fact has served him very well when he has worked with top officials. It certainly prevents him from ticking off those of them with big egos, and they come away from the game feeling that he is a great partner with which to work who does his job and lets you do yours.

While I won't speak for him, it seems to me that this is one of the biggest reasons that he is on the radar for a few D1 conferences and many other officials aren't. I'm particularly interested to hear if he agrees with me about that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

This is funny! He is actually arguing for ball watching.

Actually it's more sad than funny. I'm amazed at the number of people that try to rationalize away their "ball-watching" by using the old "get the call right" excuse. Maybe it would be easier to just reverse the 2-man mechanics to keep 'em happy. The Trail takes everything below the foul line extended on his side including the lane, and the Lead takes everything about it. That's basically what they're advocating anyway.

I'm also kinda interested in understanding the logic behind why an official 20 feet away from a trainwreck has a much better view of it than an official 6 feet away from it.

Please note that I'm not talking about the very odd time that you should reach and help out your partner. These situations just don't come up that often. I'm talking about ball watching, the same as you, which is exactly what David Rinke et al are advocating.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

.
My no brainers are the calls that are excessive contact, backside illegal screens that cause the defender to hit the ground, collisions with bodies on the floor, ETC., ETC.

If you're watching for backside illegal screens in your partner's area, and you're checking out time/distance etc. to make sure that they really are illegal, then methinks you really don't need your partner(s) in the first place.

Is your partner watching for backside illegal screens in your area too?

Jmo.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

.
My no brainers are the calls that are excessive contact, backside illegal screens that cause the defender to hit the ground, collisions with bodies on the floor, ETC., ETC.

Well if I correctly applied this NFHS rule and you came into my area and called a foul because there were bodies on the floor, I would pretty darn upset with you.

10-6-3 "...In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball. ..."

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yeah, I can attest that tomegun is one of the strictest adherents to the "stay in your primary" philosophy in the officiating community. Now let me add that despite his being a skilled referee, I believe that this fact has served him very well when he has worked with top officials. It certainly prevents him from ticking off those of them with big egos, and they come away from the game feeling that he is a great partner with which to work who does his job and lets you do yours.

Again with the egos - why should we be worried about the egos of our partners? Our job isn't to stroke the egos of our partners, and come away from the games making them feel like they have worked with a great partner. Nice side benefit, but you could work the worst game of your life, and come away with a partner who felt you did a great job, and that means something?

Also, why do I care if my partner thinks I do my job and lets him do his? I and my partner are there to WORK TOGETHER and officiate the game. Not to do my job and let him do his. Sounds very much like an "Officiate your primary ONLY, and i'll officiate my primary ONLY, and everything will work out perfect, because that is how the mechanics gods want it".

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Actually it's more sad than funny. I'm amazed at the number of people that try to rationalize away their "ball-watching" by using the old "get the call right" excuse. Maybe it would be easier to just reverse the 2-man mechanics to keep 'em happy. The Trail takes everything below the foul line extended on his side including the lane, and the Lead takes everything about it. That's basically what they're advocating anyway.

Not even close, and that is just silly to even propose it - I am assuming you were making a joke.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Please note that I'm not talking about the very odd time that you should reach and help out your partner. These situations just don't come up that often. I'm talking about ball watching, the same as you, which is exactly what David Rinke et al are advocating.

I am not in any way trying to rationalize ball watching, nor is it what I am talking about. I am challenging the assertion that they don't come up that often. I have developed a very good sense of watching off the ball, and am very happy with the increase in the amount of action I pick up on away from the ball. You are equating ball-watching with calling things out of your primary. These two are not necessarily synonymous. I completely agree that if both officials are watching the ball, no one is watching the other 8 players. (and I say both, because most of my references are to 2 man mechanics) But there are many circumstances where you have NOTHING to watch in your primary, and your vision, according to the mechanics gods, should extend into your secondary area, and therefore, you might get a call out there. You should be darn sure of it, but you have every right, by rule, to call it.

I really do hate it, when I do (once in a while) make a call outside my area, when a coach, who is even FURTHER away, complains "How are you calling that from over here?" - "Um, because I saw it, and chose to call it, and have every right to. How are you complaining from behind me, even further away?" I haven't gone that far with any coaches, but have said "Because I saw it? And you're complaining from back there, further away?" They think because you are the off official, you shouldn't be calling things you see - that you don't have a right to officiate anywhere on the floor. Not that they should be concerned with instructing their players, and teaching them that what they did was wrong.

If these mechanics are so gosh darn important to the game, why have they not been made rules? There are rules sections related to the officials - why not move mechanics into the rules, and simply say, if everyone is so certain that off-officials make bad calls so much of the time outside their primary, that they're not allowed to call things outside their primary? That would solve the problem right there - you can't call it because you're not allowed.

[tomegun]

Nevada, thanks for the kind words - you made me blush!

Saying the mechanics should be moved to the rulebook is ridiculous IMO. You guys are talking about supervisors/assigners and such. Jurassic is an assigner and he thinks you are talking about ballwatching. Does that mean anything to you?
Experienced officials know there is a time to help and most of the time you should stay in your primary. Keep the percentages on your side that the right call will be made.
Crew dynamics are very important. If we could stop harping on egos and think about why we have three, or two, officials maybe the game would be officiated better. If three partners are comfortable and know their partners are doing what they are supposed to be doing the crew is a more confident unit. Confidence is very important when it comes to doing a good job on the court.

I think you guys (David and Gimlet) are looking for reasons to venture outside your area. Sure, things happen in games where you need to help, but it is better for the three individuals focus more on getting into the right position so the percentages are higher. I have to go to work.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

I am not in any way trying to rationalize ball watching, nor is it what I am talking about. I am challenging the assertion that they don't come up that often. I have developed a very good sense of watching off the ball, and am very happy with the increase in the amount of action I pick up on away from the ball. You are equating ball-watching with calling things out of your primary. These two are not necessarily synonymous.

Yup, and all that extra action that you're now picking up is in your partner(s) area.

How happy is your local rules interpreter that has already told you very clearly and plainly in a meeting that what you are doing is wrong, as per one of your own posts? Aw, that don't matter anyway; he obviously doesn't know what "ball-watching" is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Experienced officials know there is a time to help and most of the time you should stay in your primary. Keep the percentages on your side that the right call will be made.

Just at a guess, Tom, how many times a year do you actually run into a game situation where you feel that you should reach out and help your partner(s) out?

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing that it isn't very often.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Just at a guess, Tom, how many times a year do you actually run into a game situation where you feel that you should reach out and help your partner(s) out?

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing that it isn't very often.

And your guess would be correct!

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, and all that extra action that you're now picking up is in your partner(s) area.

How happy is your local rules interpreter that has already told you very clearly and plainly in a meeting that what you are doing is wrong, as per one of your own posts? Aw, that don't matter anyway; he obviously doesn't know what "ball-watching" is.

No, the extra action I am picking up is in mine, when the ball leaves my area.

And I would love to know what you think I said that indicated my local rules interpreter said I was doing was wrong. The only time I mentioned anything like that was when the rules interpreter said "Ignore a call outside your area, rather than get the call right". If that's what you're talking about, then you are fully in support of passing on calls of anything that is outside your area, regardless of if it is the right call or not. You're saying it is the wrong call if it is outside your area, period. And the rules don't support this.

And although assignors give out the games, they don't write the rules. And if they choose who to give games to based on whether or not the person they are giving the games to chooses to follow their personal philosophy, they probably should reconsider what they're doing - they should be assigning games based on skill and fairness, not in support of their personal philosophy.