Coverage Areas
 

I have found that it is interesting that in comparing the two running sports I do (Soccer and Basketball), soccer has a much less defined division between what each partner is supposed to cover for their area. Both officials, most times, appear focussed on the ball, and only if the call is way over by the other official are you supposed to hold your whistle and let them call it.

Basketball, in the 8 years I have done it, seems to be much more focussed on "If it aint in your area, don't call it". I can understand when an official chooses to pass on a call right by them that their partner should let them do so without interfering, but if the partner has obviously (or possibly...) missed a call, you're supposed to pass on this as well... presuming that you are at that time looking outside your area for whatever reason and see it.

I guess my question is - Why? Isn't the primary responsibility of the officials (beyond the issue of safety) to make sure the game is officiated fairly and the rules are administered correctly? If you are consistently focussed on your primary, and happen to see something outside it that a partner could have been screened from, why shouldn't you call it? Just because that is how the mechanics of basketball are set up? Shouldn't we be more concerned with getting the call right between partners than who is calling what where?

I guess I have officiated with the opinion "If I miss something, please catch it". I would rather get it right than worry about who is making the call - many others seem more concerned with license restrictions than necessarily getting the call right... "Don't go fishing in MY pond!"

Opinions?

David,
I don't agree with that statement at all.

That may be the way it is done in your area, but soccer has a very developed coverage scheme for its referees and certainly both (or all three) are NOT supposed to watching the ball at the same time.

There is not an officiating system on the planet that is not based upon the principle of divide and conquer.

There are two extremes: "Call what you see, no matter where" and "Only call in your area." Both are, imo, wrong.

According to some studies, a large percentage of calls made outside your area are wrong.

Conversely, you don't want to pass on an "OMG" call just because it wasn't in your area.

The key is knowing when to go get something, and when to let it go.

Well, we never discuss it - the closest they ever come to that is "Don't call things in front of your partner". Double whistles are common in our area for soccer - and honestly, I think it is a good thing, because when you have 2 whistles for the same infraction, I can say to the player when they complain "My partner saw it too.", and that often stops the complaining.

We only discuss positioning. I do have to say that I have improved my soccer officiating by looking off ball a lot more when it isn't near me, and also staying with the player who has played the ball longer after the play, like in basketball ("Stay with the shooter") - it seems to catch a lot of late, cheap stuff.

I'd be interested to see these "studies" - never heard anything like that before.

Problem is, with your last statement, that most guys I work with are of the "My Call, RIGHT OR WRONG" attitude - if I choose not to call it, or missed it, you don't have a right to call it in my area.

Interestingly enough - the rules state that each official has the authority to make calls. The rules DON'T state anything about where they can make calls on the floor. The case book doesn't address the issue either. So the rules of the game don't prohibit these calls. The mechanics of officiating the sport is where we find this, not in the actual rules of the sport.

That is unfortunate. :( There always needs to be one referee watching the players who are behind the play. Look at the example of Zidane's headbutt in the WC Final! Ball watching is bad.

That's will stop the player's complaints sometimes, but so will a stern word or a caution for dissent. Also you should not use this with a smart coach, if you ever get a smart coach, because the reply will be, "Who is watching the rest of the field?" Double whistles are a bad thing. :( They demonstrate that both of you are watching the same thing. That tells the smart players that they aren't being watched away from the ball and can get away with all kinds of stuff.:eek:

Good that is the stuff that you should be doing! :)

But also, on the other hand, if a second person is watching where the active play is (which is more likely to be around the ball in soccer, where in basketball, a lot of the active play is away from the ball), you are more likely to catch things where one official is screened from something, and all of the spectators are not.

No perfect answer - except for having a set of officials like football - 7 on the field at a time :) - don't think we'll ever get that in soccer or basketball... "Here's your Primary Area - make sure you call only in your three square feet of court space!" - Haha:)

That is exactly the purpose of the the DSC. The center and the leading AR always try to box in the play. The center has the primary responsibility for the fouls, but the AR helps and the AR has the primary responsibility for offside and ball out of play, but the center helps. The trailing AR watches the players behind the centers back and away from the immediate area of play. This is why it is a superior system to the dual. In the dual you have to sacrifice something. I would rather sacrifice the one or two missed calls a game that are going to happen when the primary referee gets screened out or just misses the call, than the horrendous elbow/kick/punch behind the play. The game can survive if the first is missed, but not the second. You will have a major incident.

Yes, the more referees is better. That is why FIFA has gone to FOUR and the WC actually had FIVE this time around. In addition to the 4th official between the benches, there was a spare AR lurking around.
The NFHS needs to come out of the dark ages and ban the dual system. Make three the minimum.

Sounds nice - don't see this happening in our area... What is the purpose of a 4th official between the benches?

He handles all the substitutes, keeps the coaches and other bench personnel in order, keeps a record of the match (who scored the goals and when + which players received cards and when), and watches for misconduct out of the view of the Referee and ARs.

Even US Youth Regionals and Youth Nationals now use 4th officials. NV even has started using them at the State Cup tournament.

I would say that your local HS referees need to band together and tell the schools that they want the change. They can actually force it, if they are strong enough.

You CAN signal fouls with your flag, but the center has the final say. He can wave off the ARs. The ARs are only supposed to call fouls in their quadrant. A big triangle that covers from the nearest goal post to the corner flag to midfield in that ARs corner. The AR is not supposed to be watching for fouls out of that area.

So you actually can't call fouls - if the R decides he doesn't want to call it, or didn't see it and doesn't want to take the word of the AR, no foul. You're just an extra set of eyes without the ability to actually make the call yourself. It would just be difficult for me to get used to.

It's the NBA's study of their own officials. More like a report card, if you will. In grading the officials, they did a statistical analysis of the calls made in and out of a given official's primary area. They determined that calls made out of your area (in your partner's pond) were far more likely to be wrong than calls in your own primary.

Think about this next time your partner goes fishing in your pond and calls something that didn't happen (phantom fouls, travels, and double dribbles.) Ego isn't want should keep you in your primary; the desire to get the call right should do that. That doesn't mean there won't be some plays where you won't have to do it; but you should be willing to stake money that your call is right before you make it.

Do you have a link to this study? Also, does the study consider the fact that in the NBA, officials are not calling a game for anything other than entertaining the fans - the number of obvious "minor" things that are ignored for the sake of allowing the game to flow is pretty significant. I would be more likely to believe a study by college leagues than the NBA.

First of all the NBA can come up with any rules and philosophies that they like. It is a league unto itself, no different than any other pro league. I do not see where you are going with that one. NCAA players are not as talented as NBA players and you cannot have the exact same ways to call a game as you do with the NBA.

Secondly, if you do not have coverage areas, you will have people calling all kinds of things that are not in position to call. Forget coverage areas, what about something as simple as an out of bounds call. Do you think a person across the court is in a better position to a toe on the line? There is a reason there are 2 or 3 of you out there.

Peace

But in the NBA, an official who actually calls by the rules (rather than by the philosophy of making a good game for the fans) would never keep his job for long. That is where I am going - As referees, our job is to keep trying to get better, and improve our calling of the game. This means studying the rules and cases, brushing up on mechanics, etc.

The problem I have with this idea is that some people are so gung-ho for coverage areas that they don't want you calling anything in their area period. Are we, or are we not, out there to get the calls right? Some people i have worked with say "Well, if I miss it, too bad... i missed it, but you still shouldn't have called it". And we do the out of bounds thing all the time - i agree that the closest official would be more likely to judge the toe on the line, but we help each other all the time on tips or deflections which change what would be the direction the ball is going when it hits out of bounds.

No coverage areas would be bad. I believe that 100% (or even close to it) adherance to coverage areas is just as bad. I want my partner to call things I might miss, if they're in my area, and I want to have the same ability with other partners. Top priority should be "get the call right" - not "protect your valuable fishing area".

In an officials meeting recently, I was told, directly when asked, if I was supposed to pass on a foul/violation that I observed from a distance, and my partner missed, and I was certain they missed it, that I should not call it. This was by the rules interpreter. What happened to getting the call right? I was told it is his call to make or miss.

I've been saying that for years.:D

1) David, you have no idea how much hard work and study is required daily of NBA officials. They make all of us look like slackers. They are also constantly being second-guessed; every single call that they make is graded. There is simply no comparison between the pro and amateur games.

2) I agree, David. You just keep calling in your partner's area. T'heck with your rules interpreter. What does he know? And btw, good luck in your soccer-officiating career.

Point 1 - that's fine, but they're being graded not in how they call all the rules, or we wouldn't have people taking 4 steps in drives to the hoop, with no traveling call - how often do NBA players travel, and how often is it called? I'm sure that would be an interesting statistic. They ignore some things to benefit star players people want to see play, rather than get called for "minor" (and I used the quotes to indicate i don't consider them such) infractions and "minor" contact fouls. I'm sure if they went through the games and picked on things that, by rule, should have been called, they would have a lot of people who would be out of jobs for ignoring many things, by rule - not by "interpreter" or "assignor" or "association" standards.

Point 2 - Now, that is getting rather facitious. I am being serious. I was told, in front of a group of officials, that I should pass on what is the right call in favor of protecting the calling areas. Isn't our primary job, beyond player safety, to preserve the integrity of the game and get the calls right? Or is it to cover for a partner who obviously missed a call (and this was a point I made - in this example, the official missed the call, and had they seen it, probably would have called it... for the sake of the example), and preserve an arbitrary set of mechanics that no one outside of some knowledgable coaches and the officials themselves knows or understands? I'm not saying to do it all the time - i'm saying it shouldn't be an absolute expectation - it should be a guide.

Based on this comment, I really think you have no idea what goes on with the NBA or what the rules are. The rules in the NBA are not as ridged or as black and white. The NBA goes over all aspects of the rules in ways you would never understand. The NBA officials are not forced to just read a rulebook and never talk to the creators of the rules on a regular basis. The NBA officials have an internet meeting every single day, where plays are reviewed and they know what were good calls and bad calls in every single game they officiate. The NCAA or the NF (or state associations) have no such communication between the rules makers and the officials on a monthly basis let alone a daily basis to go over good plays and bad plays from the officials.

You have a right to believe what you want to, but calling stuff all over the court does not make it right. You mentioned that you work other sports other than basketball. I can tell you I would be totally wrong if I went around in those sports and starting calling things I "thought" I saw and was not in position to call. I am a Back Judge on my football crew and I know I do not see things with the line of scrimmage or line play issues. It would be just as wrong for a base umpire to call balls and strikes from a position where you cannot see the plate clearly. Just because you "think" you saw something, does not mean you actually did see what your partner saw. Get it right does not mean that you "got it right" if you partner saw the entire play and you are not watching your area.

No it is not. If I am watching my area, especially when the ball is not around me, I personally do not want to watch the ball because the problems are going to start off-ball. It is easy to watch the ball and if we think there is a travel you can call it. What is hard to do is to stay off-ball and watch things that will creep up into the game much later. If you are not watching your coverage area and roaming, you might just miss the very thing that brings your game into the toilet. It is also one thing to call something that is in a trouble area where two primary coverage areas overlap. It is another thing all together to call something that your partner was watching the entire time. Also at least in 3 man, if you want to get plays right, move and you will be in better position when things change.

Peace

1) Um, David, NBA officials sureasheck <b>are</b> being graded on the rules and their application. As I said before, every <b>single</b> call that they make is graded, and they are told if they made the correct call or not. And as for traveling, how the NBA wants that called is solely up to the NBA. They give their officials direction. You can't apply NFHS/NCAA philosophies to the pro game. If anybody doesn't agree with the NBA philosophies, then they can do what I do- vote with the "OFF" button on their channel-changer.

2) Hey, I'm serious too. Stand up for what you believe in. If you think that your rules interpreter and everyone else in your association is wrong, then stand up for your convictions and keep calling all over the court. There's just one liitle thing that confuses me though. How come you are so sure that you're right 30 feet away from the play, and your experienced partner is wrong from 6 feet away?

Btw, coaches don't know our mechanics. They do know when someone is calling something from 30 feet away that his partner from 6 feet away has already passed on. Believe you me, they know.

So, bottom line, you're saying the same thing as the other guy - pass on a call where your partner obviously missed the call (and I am, again, going to stress that this was a part of the situation - i noticed he was looking the wrong way and missed it, everyone in the place saw it, video cameras later could back me up... it is not a call my partner passed on, it is a MISSED call by him, and even later, he would admit, seeing the tape, that he missed it) in favor of protecting arbitrary coverage areas? A simple yes or no would apply here. And to me, a yes says the rules are the bottom line (again, beyond safety)... a no says that the rules are not the bottom line, in which case, I would say, why have them.

And as far as the NBA - rules are not rigid or loose - they are what they are - if you choose to insert slack into them, you are enforcing them loosely. If you go by the book, you are enforcing them rigidly. The rules writers didn't write what amounts to 1.5 steps before you travel for it to be interpreted as 2-3 steps when you feel like it, or they would have written that into the rules.

They also know when an obvious call has been missed by your partner near them, and is is obvious to everyone in the place (coach, the other official, etc) that there was a foul/violation. Shouldn't we be striving to get the right call, rather than protecting our partner's calling area? I'd rather justify why I made a call, than to have to (and I feel I need to be honest) say to a coach "Sorry, I saw it, but I can't call it from over here". Some would say, just cover for it... but that isn't in the best interest of the game.

And on the other side of the coin - I would prefer if I miss something for my partner to catch it. I am not so big-headed that I feel i see everything and can make every call perfect - if I miss something, am screened, etc, i would rather they make the call to get it right than to pass on it simply because I am closer. Get it right - that's my motto - in relation to the rules, not the mechanics.

And finally, are the NBA officials being graded on the no-calls? When someone takes 3 full steps going to the hoop, do they get told they should have called it? I highly doubt it.

From having played both basketball and soccer, and having reffed basketball, I'd have to say there are some interesting differences. And I think they all have something to do with the restrictive size of the basketball court.

Simply because there are so many bodies in such a small area, you will have more contact than on a soccer field. So there are more incidents that need to be judged. At some point it becomes necessary to more formally divide the responsibility.

Because of the constant proximity of the players, a good basketball team continuously screens and cuts to get players open and the defense is constantly moving around screens and switching. There is so much going on all the time in a basketball game. I have never seen that much off ball action in soccer. Perhaps that's because I never played above high school?

There is also a different tradition, and thus perception of making calls "in front of your partner" in basketball. Many coaches know the officials' areas and get quite upset if they know you're calling out of your area. And it's not always just trying to play you off your partner. If a coach sees his players getting hammered off-ball and sees that both of you are watching on-ball, he's got a legitimate gripe.

Then there is the consistency issue. If you've been calling contact in your area consistently, and your partner occassionally reaches in and grabs something that you've been passing on all night, it ruins your consistency.

And as others have cited, the NBA and the NCAA have both conducted studies that show a large percentage of calls outside an official's primary are incorrect. Much of that, I believe, stems from not seeing the whole play develop. You can get in a lot of trouble if you're making calls on plays you've only seen part of.

But everything I have mentioned is a generality. Some games and teams don't generate near the amount of contact or activity. Partners do get screened out or lose angles on plays. Things do happen in partner's areas away from the ball. Occassionally a partner suffers vapor lock on a must-get play right in front of him. Stuff happens.

Any well designed set of hard and fast rules about calling in or out of an area will likely be right most of the time, and wrong some of the time. So I tend to take a progressive approach to calling outside my area:

• If it happens any where in my area, it's my call. I want to be the one to make it.
• If it happens in the gray area, and there is any doubt as to whether my partner saw it, I will call it.
• If it happens in the key, and there is any doubt as to whether my partner saw it, I may call it.
• If it happens away from the ball in my partner's area, I might call it.
• If it happens on-ball in my partner's area, I won't call it unless somebody loses a limb and it is completely obvious that my partner couldn't see it happen.

So other than traditional double-coverage areas (the gray area, the key), the farther it is into my partner's area it is, the less likely I am to call it. The closer to being on-ball it is in my partner's area, the less likely I am to call it. If it's on-ball in my partner's area, I am extremely unlikely to call it.

But there are some exceptions to those generalities as well. Curl plays going to the basket and away from my partner, I'll help if I clearly see a foul on the back side or from a secondary defender. A block/charge call involving a secondary defender I'll help with. Pass and crashes, we're supposed to divide coverage irrespective of areas.

Then there are times when you need to expand your area into your partner's to help out. When lead goes out wide, trail has lead's post. When the lead's area is empty, he expands to cover off-ball in trail's area. There are probably others too.

And lastly none of that matters if there are things of interest to be watched in my own area, which is normally the case, because I'll be watching that. So normally I'm not watching my partner's area. Sometimes I do see into my partner's area. Occassionally I should be looking into my partner's area.

Two-person basketball mechanics is everlastingly a game of intelligent trade-offs. You cannot be successful by staying in your area every moment. And IMHO any official who says "never fish in my pond" doesn't understand two-person mechanics. And IMHO any official who doesn't understand that going out of your area is risky equally misunderstands two-person.

Very well written - and I have to say, I do agree. Thanks!

David,

It sounds like you have all the answers and no one can tell you anything. Do what you feel is best and I hope your career goes alright. ;)

Peace

David, you have no idea what you talking about. First of all, the NBA has different travelling rules than NCAA/NHFS as well as numerous other rules differences. If (and I repeat if) NBA officials are consistently allowing players to take 3 full steps going to the hoop then it's either b/c that's what the NBA rules allow or the NBA officials have direct guidance from their boss(es) on the enforcement of travelling violations in those particular situations.

Secondly, my youngest son attends school with the son of an NBA referee. He (the NBA official) said the hardest adjustment from NCAA to NBA was the constant scrutiny he is now under. Every call/non-call is graded. He says the pressure to perform is immense.

So please, stick with discussing covereage areas, b/c your statements concerning NBA officiating are not serving you too well.

BIS great disertation - I am going to add this to my pre game review

What you address is very important,
1) consistancy,
2) seeing the whole play,
3) if you are watching your partners area who's watching your area?
4) patience

Last night working a JC scrimmage I was the slot with a player driving to the basket from my primary after he gathers the ball to shoot a jumper, he gets bumped, I wait because he is going up.
But nooooo, the lead comes across the lane and gets the call on the primary defender, and has it on the floor.
Bad lead!
Offense didn't get the basket or the free throw - and then turned the ball over.
Bad lead!

Comments from a father of a friend of a son... sounds like rather 3rd or 4th hand information. As for not serving me well... I am entitled to my opinion as much as anyone else. A large number of people I know don't like watching the NBA, because it isn't "basketball" - it's a show.

I looked up the NBA rules on traveling on NBA.com's rulebook. At no point do they allow 3 steps when taking a shot. So if the "guidance from their bosses" is telling them to ignore rules... something is wrong. One of the biggest things with this game is that people pick and choose which rules they wish to enforce, and ignore ones they don't like. I don't understand why we have rules, if assignors and interpreters are free to say "well, we don't want to enforce that rule", or "We don't want that rule enforced that way" - if they want it changed, petition the rules committee. Don't just make it up as you go along.

Reading problems I see...the comments were directly from the NBA official to me.

If you really want to get into this, your use of "he" in the original statement could have referred to the ref, his son, or your son... so be more clear.

This is a silly argument. You guys feel that mechanics are as important as the rules, which is not correct - we can do the sport without mechanics, it just wouldn't be as organized. We can't have a sport without rules.

Waste of time, News, waste of time. He ain't ever gonna get it. Might as well let it go.

Have we found our Grammar Guru? :D

This is a silly argument. You guys feel that mechanics are as important as the rules, which is not correct - we can do the sport without mechanics, it just wouldn't be as organized. We can't have a sport without rules.

The mechanics are there as a tool to help you see the floor better to enforce the rules, in a consistant and fair manner.

Obviously you are a rule book referee, I would suggest that you relax a little and call your primary area perfectly first - then start to worry about others areas.
Only because if you are calling things in someone elses area you might be missing something in your area and then you are back where you started - you are not getting it right.

We all want to get the play right, but a big part of getting it right is SEEING THE ENTIRE PLAY, something which is nearly impossible to do if it happens outside of your primary.

There will always be some overlap...where primaries meet, things in the paint, or drives to the basket from one primary into another...and those things need to be hashed out in pregame.

Thinking you see something obvious, and knowing you see it is two very different things. Trust your partner and only go get something that isn't basketball related...cheap shots, punches, elbows, that sort of thing...common fouls and especially violations leave alone.

As for the studies, the WNBA did a breakdown on lead calling across the paint, and when they did they got it wrong 75% of the time.

Great statistic! I'll be sharing that with my HS crew. That is the major thing we want to get away from. I joined a 2 man crew last season and with all of us, some of the 2 man habits stuck around. I don't feel like I do it often, but I'm sure I do it more than I want to think I do.

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

Am I wrong in remembering that you have argued repeatedly that we should be aware of what's happening outside our own areas? I'm trying to recall the phrase you used, something like "see globally, call locally" or something like that.

Though the conversation has gotten sidetracked a bit, I don't think he's arguing for ball watching. I think he's arguing that there are times when we can and should help our partner with a call in our partner's area. But he feels that some partners' "No Fishing Allowed" policy is sometimes counterproductive and gets in the way when an official should help his partner.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my sense of what he's really talking about.

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.;)

It amazes me that often times we get so concerned with who's call it is /isn't that we lose focus of what really matters. THE GAME.

First of all I'm not saying that if we see it then we need to call it if our partner isn't. First I would ask why are we seeing the supposed missed call by our partner. Thats not to say that in Dual coverage area's that we can't see the same play and give the primary a chance. If he/she doesn't get it then get it, if it has to be gotten.

In fact this is a great area of discussion in your pre game. We can't be so concerned with our EGO's that we lose sight of the objective...to officiate the game as fairly and consistently as possible for both teams. In my neck of the woods we pre game, "If it's on tape lets get the play right." That is also true even if it's not on tape. Lets just make sure if we are going to fish in someone else's pond that we catch a whale not a fish.

LETS GET THE PLAY RIGHT!

You can say "the game" is the most important thing, but what does that mean?

If you are making a lot of calls that were not there, is that not hurting the game? If you are watching the ball and you miss all the things that are in your area, are you not hurting the game?

If your partner is standing 6 feet away from a play and you are 20 feet away and he passes on something he is closer to the play, and you see part of the play and make a call, if you ask me that is not getting the call right or helping the game. I do not know what ego has to do with any of this. I know when I blow the whistle there is a reason. I know when I do not blow my whistle, there is also a reason. I do not need help from someone when I know why I do things. If you do not want to work with me, that is OK. But I get paid the same money you do and give me a chance to call the game properly or we should not work together anymore. Then I will likely get fired if I cannot do the job. It is not as complicated as you are making it. There is a reason why some guys get opportunities and other guys sit at home on a regular basis.

Peace

You can ask anyone here; you definitely have me wrong about that one! I don't even know who you got that globally stuff from. Thanks for the laugh!

Seems like you are solidifing my point. I wasn't justifing that you should call in your partners primary. Thats why I said if you are going to fish make sure it's a whale.

However are there calls that we just miss that a partner could have gotten or did get he saved the crew? I know that missing calls is just part of the process. You said, "I do not know what ego has to do with any of this. I know when I blow the whistle there is a reason. I know when I do not blow my whistle, there is also a reason." Are you saying that you don't miss calls?

We all have some sort of ego to be any good @ this craft. However we also have to understand that there are times that we should thank our partners for saving us and getting a call that the whole arena seen and somehow I had a brainfart and didn't hit the whistle.

Uh oh, the pro-ballwatchers are growing. :D There are two or three referees for a reason. There are primaries for a reason. The NBA and WNBA have conducted research on calling outside the primaries. The NBA grades every call - and the officials get into position to make these calls. Oh, they do this without jumping around like court jesters!

If (some) of you guys are so concerned with what is going on in your partners' area(s), who is watching your area?

Why do most of these calls that your partners miss happen where the ball is? Don't your partners who are supposed to be watching off-ball ever miss anything? Odd how that happens huh?

If I miss enough calls that are "game saving", let me miss them and get fired!

This is what I say and have said in the past, "You're not getting any of my check so you might as well let me call my area."

C'mon Dude, are you saying it is impossible to see the play with the ball that is in your partners primary without losing off ball coverage. What if you are in the slot and most of the action is on the strong side. You mean you can't see anything on the strong side that is out of your area. Besides were talking about those few plays that the whole place seen except the primary official. That kind of play, bodies on the floor, excessive contact, has to be gotten. You know why... the coach or coach's are going to send that film to the supervisor. The supervisor is going to want to know why no one put a whistle on the play. Screw ball watching...were talking about protecting your partners in dual coverage area's.

As for the WNBA and the NBA they have plays that end up being called by the non primary official. Plays from Center to Lead with secondary defenders.

Your right! your partners aren't getting any of your check. What if your missed calls, if any, weren't picked up by your partners and the game your on goes south or better yet the film gets to your college supervisor or the film gets passed around the high school coach's. You may not care about what happen's to you but what about what happens to your partners? Because you one of those officials who says, "stay out of my area!"

What is most important to you? You, your check, yoour partners, or the game? The best officials or I should say the best R's are the officials who make the crew better without sacrificing their partners.

Once again, everything being argued is what gets pre gamed as shared calls...which hardly fits the subject of this thread...AT&T calls way outside your primary.

In Arizona we still do 2 whistle, so this is an even worse game killer than it would be with 3 officials.

I can tell you from experience, that very, VERY rarely has a partner made a call with me a few feet away where:

1. I didn't see it and it needed to be gotten.

2. That they got it right.

There are times where they saw part of the play and I passed on something that didn't need to be called and they either got that or called a violation on the result of my pass.

Other times they just flat out missed it, and were 100% wrong.

This has nothing to do with ego, it's all about getting it right. If you are ball watching from 30 feet away, you aren't getting a great look and the odds are you'll miss it. If you split focus and pick something up while watching your area, just how good a look did you get? Did you see the play start to finish? Again, chances are you'll get it wrong.

Seeing an elbow to the face is hard to get wrong.

Seeing a shot to the beans is hard to get wrong.

Seeing two handed pushes in the back is hard to get wrong.

Seeing a travel, LGP, movement toward an opponent, a chicken wing, clear out from 30 feet away is EASY to get wrong.

Great points. I just hope that we don't have or keep the mentality that if it's not in my primary then I can't call it. Lets face it none of us is perfect!!! There are very good reasons to get a call that isn't in your primary. None of which I'm talking about are violations. I'm directlt talking about game saving / crew saving calls.

Actually you are missing my point entirely. I never said "NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER" make a call that is outside of your area. We all get screened and if you understand anything about 3 man mechanics, the Center official is very likely going to make a call from time to time outside of their coverage area.

If the official cannot call the game, then they do not need to be there. Also if I go around calling all over the court, I will not be there. I would rather work again then totally throw out mechanics and start doing something that is not in my job. Now you can call that ego, I call that doing my job properly.

I think you are focusing on this ego thing a little too much. Some of us just like to do the job that is asked of us. Ego is secondary. I do not care if someone calls something in my area as long as they are right. If they are totally wrong (which often times they are) then I am really going to be upset because I would hope I would not do that to you. Some of us believe in not ball watching, it has nothing to do with ego.

Peace

.

These are the situations I'm referring to. Sometimes Center has the best look @ plays through the paint.



I don't think I ever said that it's OK for a official to call all over the floor. However are you saying that it not possible for you to miss a call or even make a bad call. Because if your human then I'm sure there are some calls/ no calls that you would like to have back. I'm not talking about if you can do your JOB or not. I referring to the few very help calls that is essential in calling the game. My reference to EGO's came from the earliar post's implying that you should not ever call out of your primary.


All in all I believe we are on the same page. Not sure I look @ this a job. It's more of a advocation. I like the big games, pressure, being apart of the game. The money is just the icing on the cake. To do what we do and to be any good @ it requires some qualities that aren't found in most people. Some of that is defined as a stronger EGO then others.

I let this one go for a while, and it was nice to see someone agrees with me on some of the points.

Why do you guys that believe this, think that mechanics is what makes the officials able to do their jobs? I understand not ball watching - I watch off the ball quite a bit, looking for those competitive matchups, etc. But there are a lot of times when 1) you don't have anything to watch in your area (if it's not that competitive of a game, or the players are playing nice), and 2) you really DO need to know what is going on globally (as the phrase was used earlier in the thread). So therefore, you are going to extend your view outside your primary area. It does say "primary", not "ONLY", or "RESTRICTED". Primary means first - first area of responsibility, not ONLY area of responsibility.

The rules... as they are written, and govern the game... do NOT say anything about one official having authority extending over part of the court and only part of the court. They do not restrict calls to one specific area for one official. They do define slight differences in responsibility for R's and U's, but very slight ones. As an official, I (and my partner) have the right to call anything anywhere on the court. (Consider - the coaches feel they have the right to complain about anything anywhere on the court... heh - but we have the right by rule to call anything anywhere on the court)

I do not understand how a set of arbitrary mechanics can restrict what, by rule, we are allowed to do. I have used the word "arbitrary" multiple times in reference to these mechanics. Someone somewhere decided this is what they wanted us to do. The rules are decided and voted on by a committee. What about mechanics? Same people? Or just some people who want the game called a certain way.

And I also have a problem with some responses... "Call whatever you want - just don't work with me" - "Go ahead and do whatever you want, see what happens". These kinds of responses don't get to the heart of the matter - they are a knee-jerk response by people who have run out of responses beyond "That's just the way it is".

Mechanics are supposed to help us officiate the game. They are not supposed to put us in a position where one official is looked down upon, berated, complained about, or denegrated in any way for calling something they have every right by rule to call, but their partner just doesn't want them calling. In most cases, I have found, the newer officials are more of my opinion "Get the call right - help me out when you feel I need it", and the older officals are the ones whose egos (to use a term brought up a few messages ago) have grown to the point that it becomes "My call, right or wrong - don't you DARE reach into my area".

The comment about the check gets me too... since you don't get paid by call, or by size or area of responsibility, you get paid, as a pair, to officiate the game. Sometimes one official calls more/less than the other - as long as they are consistent within the game, and it is a fair contest, there is nothing for anyone to complain about. Otherwise, in some games, I should get a larger check than my partner, because they don't do anything, and in some, I should get the smaller check, because my partner runs the show completely. This is ludicurous - saying "I get paid my fee, so let me do my area" - by rule, both officials are responsible for the GAME - not for specific areas of the court (except for the slight R and U differences mentioned above).

I can't expect to change the system. I can't even expect to get some of the people who believe mechanics are the be-all and end-all of basketball to rethink that absolute belief that the mechanics they have been taught are always right. All I expect to do is bring to light that some people disagree with the belief that your primary area is to be your only area, and that no basketball official could possibly be wrong in their call in their primary area. "My call, right or wrong" is a bad attitude to have ANYWHERE on the court.

I would hope people would at least agree that getting the calls right SHOULD be the highest goal of any official. Sticking to primary coverage and current mechanics may help - but also may in some cases hinder - this goal.

-
Don't get me wrong. I believe in the mechanics. They are essential in officiating the game. However they are just a guideline to be in the right area looking at the right things to put you in the best possible position to make the correct call. They don't mean that you can never, never come out of your primary to make a call. I do agree with some of what was said earliar that most calls made out of primary areas are more wrong then right. Especially with newer officials. I don't agree with the philosphy that you stay in your area and I will stay in mine. That is the type of personality or EGO if you will, that destroy's what the mechanics manual is trying to accomplish.

If you don't have anything to officiate in your primary then you are suppossed to exyend to your secondary. This is taught @ every college officiating camp that I've attended over the years. It's not a license to make arbitrary calls on top of your partners.

They aren't. They are just guidelines that for the most part work really well.


This si why you want to make sure you officate with partners who look @ the game similar to the way you look @ it.
THe higher level you officiate the more you will find out that is not the case. Most of the time in pre games it will be discussed that if there is a call that everyone sees but me, "please come in and get it!" It will save the crew. These are few and far in between. But when it happens and it will ,most partners want partners who will be there to step up and make the tough call out of your primary.
LETS GET THE PLAY RIGHT!!!!

Where did I say I would not make a mistake? The last time I checked, officials are human. I have yet to call a perfect game and I have yet to watch a perfectly officiated game. I have also never seen a game saved because someone called a minor foul or violation from across the court. If anything it is your ego that thinks you can save a game by making these kinds of calls if you ask me. ;)

Anytime you are getting paid to do something, it is a job. If it is not a job, do not take any money for it. Do not file taxes for it. Then tell me how much of a job it is not when the IRS comes calling. ;) You also missed my point about when I said job. We are all out their doing something we were assigned to do. If you feel you are going to save a crew because you are ball watching, then do that. I do not have to work with you. It is not me that is going to tell the assignor they do not want to work with you. It is also funny that when I hear these "we have to call everything in the game" people, it is never at a camp, it is never an official that is at the high levels and you cannot find any philsophy that reflects this in the mechanics or rules literature.

Peace

How we got this far of course I don't know. You taking what I'm saying out of context. If you read my posts you will find that I'm not referring to minor fouls or any violations. I'm talking about the big GIANT no brianer calls that everyone knows there has to be a whistle. These are very few and far in between. However I raised that point to the posts that suggest that you never can come out of your primary.


.C'mon. Nobody is talking about ball watching. You act like you can't possibly ever see the ball while it's not in your primary. What if you don't have anything in your primary? Can your secondary extend into your partners primary?

Well I don't know who you talk to or what camps you attend. The camps I attend and the level I work @ this is a philosphy that we officiate by. Nobody ever said that we have to call evreything. You need to take some time and read the previous posts. As far as manuals, try taking a look @ the CCA manuals. These will cover primary and secondary areas in depth.

We need to stop talking in generalities, let us get to the bottom line.

I have a few questions for you guys to clarify your position.

1. You are the Lead Official and your partner is watching the ball handler. The ball handler "carries" the ball about near the division line. Do you call this as the Lead official?

2. You are the trail official and the ball goes out right in front of the Lead official, do you blow the whistle and signal as the trail official?

3. There is a throw-in and your partner is administering the throw-in. The thrower moves a little to the side and in your opinion the player violated the designated spot; do you call the violation that your partner missed?

Are these game saving calls?

Peace

Two problems:

Getting paid for something does not make it a job. I am a volunteer fireman, and have been one for 16+ years. No money for anything there, which makes it less than a job because no money changes hands? I don't think so.

Also, I never said to call everything in a game. However, why do we have rules, if they are not there to be administered? They didn't make the rule and say "When traveling occurs, only call it 2/3 of the time, or when you personally feel it will advance the quality of the game". It says "When traveling occurs, here's the penalty".

I find it funny that listening to our rules interpreter, he is giving us the information by the book. The officials still go out and call whatever they feel like or want to under the circumstances of the game. Why go over the rules by the book, if officials aren't supposed to follow it?

I can find the "Call everything by the rules" stated very clearly - in the rules, as the rules - here's the foul/violation, here's what you're supposed to call. Nowhere in there does it say "Call what you want when you want, and ignore the rest whenever you want."

I would not be likely to call any of these. 1) Carrying is very subjective, and in your example, that is pretty far away. Now, if they clearly carried, and my partner is back at the other endline, chatting with a coach, maybe I would call it. 2) No, but I might help out on a tip indicating a change in direction if I clearly saw the tip. 3) Not likely to call under any circumstances. Now, if I saw the player clearly step onto the court by more than just a little, and my partner was watching a very competitive matchup in front of him, ignoring the thrower-in, I might call it if the player gained a major advantage from it, but still unlikely.

Are they game saving calls? You have to define this. If you mean game-changing, absolutely under the right circumstances. A screwed up throw-in by a team down 2 points with several seconds left would take away their chance to win. Should we get the call right, or should we ignore the violation in favor of letting them get the chance? I vote for the first option - always - get the call right.

But what about:

1) A clear foul away from the ball, outside my area, because my partner was watching the ball (like he was supposed to) in his area?

2) A clear violation (3 step travel, etc) outside my area, when my partner was obviously distracted by some off-ball heavy physical play in his area?

And, as I have been presuming in all cases (and has been brought up contrary to this) - in all cases, I am assuming the foul or violation call is CORRECT - you have been presuming because your statistics show that often calls outside your area are wrong, any call outside the primary must be wrong. I am saying that, under further review, after checking the video and consulting with numerous witnesseses, the call is CORRECT - the foul/violation occurred as viewed by the off-primary person. Answer with this in mind.

NO!!!!!

NO! Unless your partner doesn't blow his whistle. 99.9% of the time you wouldn't have a whistle. You could give help info if needed. Lead might have been officiating a match up in the paint and the ball might have went out behind him/her. Trail more then likley would be referring this play, but would wait for L to have a whistle and then give help if needed.

NO!! If you did then you would be ball watching.
Not ever unless it was a tie ball game and lead was about to give the ball to the wrong team with a few seconds left in the game. But generally no they aren't game savers.

Peace[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

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. Now at the time I was confident that my call was the right call, until during the evaluation process. Now whether I thought I was right or not, really does not matter. The point is that it was seen by the people that observed as the wrong call. What I think does not matter. 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. I guess this is why some officials get picked up and others never get picked up. You live and learn.

Peace

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.

.
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.


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?


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 @.

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.

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? :rolleyes:

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.:rolleyes:

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 <b>ball watching</b>, the same as you, which is exactly what David Rinke <i>et al</i> are advocating.

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 <b>your</b> area too?

Jmo.

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. ..."

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".

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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! :)

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.

On occasion, in my case...

IMO, two things are indicating you haven't been doing this too long.

1. You are still wanting to find our mechanics in the rulebook. Do you even know there are mechanics books? What does our mechanics have to do with the playing rules of basketball? Will you want the coaches to put their plays in the rulebook next?

2. Look at what you said about assigners! I'm new to this area and last week I had a game with a guy who is in several conferences (3 of them are D1). One of the first things he says to me is, "In this league..." He said that because different assigners have different philosophies. That is the way it is so you should just get over it.

How long have you been officiating and what level do you currently work? I'm only curious because what you are complaining about is just the nature of the beast.

Can you explain, in detail, the difference between "not very often" and "on occasion?"

And that was probably the exact same point that both of us were trying to make.

It just doesn't happen often enough to warrant looking all over the gym. Jmo, but if and when it does happen, it will grab your attention anyway. You won't have to look for it.

8 years, Jr High/HS JV, Soccer, basketball, and Swimming.

And I am saying different assignors can have different philosophies, just as different officials can have different philosophies. Choosing to accept or refuse to do a game because of philosophy is one thing. Assigning games based on a personal philosophy is completely another.

As for mechanics - I have all of the books related to NFHS basketball (all 5-6 of them) as of 2 years back. I know mechanics are listed separately. What I am saying is the rules say one thing, and mechanics contradict this (in regards to what people can and should call). If the mechanics are so important that they overshadow the rules, or change them, shouldn't they be part of the rules? If they are only guidelines, then we can choose to follow them or now.

Now, if a League has different rules, that's fine. Those are the rules of the league, and they are rules, like the game rules. If the league says to follow those mechanics without fail, then the conflict mentioned in the last paragraph shows up.

Maybe it is the nature of the beast.

Very little. Not very often to me means a couple of times a season. On occasion means, to me, maybe between several times a game and once every several games.

Also, not very often is a negative statement. On occasion is a positive statement. Both are similar, but different in how they state the point.

Well, David, first of all, I don't think that you really understand what your rules interpreter, as well as people on this forum, are trying to tell you. And second, if you choose to ignore what your interpreter and assignor are telling you, you <b>will</b> have all kinds of time available to officiate soccer games.

OK wise guy, how long have you been officiating basketball and what levels? I didn't want you to group swimming and soccer into the answer. :rolleyes:

You have games where you just <b>have</b> to go into your partner's area <b>several</b> times to make calls that you think they're missing? <b>Several</b> times in <b>one</b> game?

It's a wonder that you've lived as long as you have.:D

6 years of basketball, Jr High through JV. - Happy?

Forget whether I'm happy or not. Your original answer was misleading and IMO you did that on purpose. I could go on and on about that, but I won't.

You are talking like you have this thing beat, but you don't. In reality, very few of us do (not me). However, you cannot tell an assigner what to do or have such a hard stance on officiating at such an early stage of your career. You could slow your progress down by doing what you are talking about when you make it to varsity. The R could report back to your assigner and your progress could come to a halt. Just think about it. If you are using the board to vent that is cool. Just let that be known.

I didn't say I HAVE to. I said that it has happened.

As for living, that is just another example of the ego concept - "How could you POSSIBLY want to come into my area that much?" I think if we threw the egos out, and just did our best for the game as a whole (and not just for our individual areas), we would be much better off. You folks are saying it is best for the game if we stay in our own little areas and out of each others. Again, I say, if it is THAT important, make it a rule, and only allow officials to call stuff in their primaries. If there are two games running on parallel courts, I don't have the right to call stuff on the other court - why should I have the right to call stuff outside my primary if I'm never supposed to?

I have rarely found a basketball official that is willing to admit they messed a call up (and fix it, when possible), except to other officials or other people, like coaches, after a game, when their mistake stands. Basketball officials, of all of the officials I have seen and had contact with, have the biggest ego "My call-right or wrong", or "It was my call to mess up, so stay out of my area". And again, I need to say - I'm not the one determining the right-ness of the call - it is a call that anyone who knows what they are doing that is watching would admit is wrong.

First, I was not being misleading - I consider myself to have been officiating sports for 8 years - soccer and swimming for 8, and basketball for 6. I actually have been officiating basketball for close to 8, just not with the PIAA.

As for progress, I am relatively happy with the level of games I work. Some people have aspirations to become a college official or professional - I'm happy where I'm at. I like to try to get better, but don't necessarily see a need to move up to higher levels.

And no, I can't tell an assignor what to do. But I can have a problem with how they do things, and be willing to make this publically known. I don't have a problem with our current assignors in any of the sports I officiate.

We have different rules interpreters and assignors in our chapters. I think this is a good thing. But I also find it interesting that the rules interpreter gives very detailed information about how certain rules are to be interpreted, and many officials just do whatever they want, and get games anyway. I'm not talking mechanics - I'm talking the rules themselves. This makes no sense to me. Besides, again - the mechanics are guidelines - the rules are the rules.

There is just one very small, tiny, wee problem though, David. Along with throwing the egos out, you're also throwing out standard floor coverages that the NFHS has developed and established over many years, along with the accompanying calling philosophies that go along with those floor coverages.

Don't let that stop you though.

Would that be officiating intramural basketball up to now, David, by any chance?

Only for the first 2 years of the 8. I did intramurals during most of the rest of the time, as well as PIAA work.

What in the heck does ego have to do with something are you are totally wrong? You make it sound like when these calls are made, they are always, without fail, correct. You have made comments about "get it right" but all your examples of what you call I can do fine when I am officiating. I do not need someone to call a screen for me. In most cases I am not eye balling the ball handler that I cannot watch things around the ball handler.

Maybe that is what takes place where you live, but I work in at levels and with officials where we talk extensively about the games. I know when I screw up I tell my partners. When my partners screw up they talk about it as well. First of all most screw ups are a break down amongst the crew, so even when my partners screw up it is not just about them. Maybe that is a problem with the people you work with or you have not learned to show leadership to get a crew to open up about their mistakes. Also I feel that I do not need partners to admit mistakes for my satisfaction. Ultimately what makes someone a good official is what they do individually. I cannot magically make another official a good official because I am at the game. I have said this before and I will say this again, there is a reason why some officials are seen as good and work with many opportunities and there are reasons why others are held back and have very few opportunities.

Peace

No kidding...Know one said to make anything up. I'm not referring to just bodies colliding. Talking about ILLEGAL EXCESSIVE CONTACT that leave player/players on the ground. I'm not sure your ever going to get my point.



Sure we ought to be able to referee more then two players @ A time. The play I shot @ you was a BACKSIDE screen that was a ILLEGAL screen that leaves a defender on the floor. Not a so called iffy illegal screen.

You might have thought it was something to get...however it obviously wasn't. I'm not referring to MARGINAL contact or even MARGINAL fouls. I'm talking about the big one you see from time to time that makes you say, "why wasn't there a whistle on that play?"


Here is the quote I was referring to. From the thread starter
Again, read the whole thing and you may actually get this....



I attended five D1 camps this summer as well as the last few years. In the camps I've been to and the games I work this philosphy is common place. Your statement is wrong about camps. I'm wondering what you work now if your mentality is what it is. College supervisors are looking for "R's" not "U's" They want to find those people who can take care of the game, make their partners better, and are willing to step up when the need arises. This then proves your ability!

Really...Nobody said that you should prove that you can call in your partners primary....Again I'm talking about the help call.
If there was excessive contact that the clinician is getting onto the official who's primary it was in then I'm sure that same clinician would've been saying good job if one of his partners would've helped out with the play.Its still ultimatly up to the primary official to get it. Give him/her first crack then if they don't get then you get it. Either the C to L or T to L or L to C. I guess thats why there this thing I've been talking about called, "secondary."

Then don't adopt it. Maybe your OK where your @ and thats OK. If you want to move up you have to be willing to help your partners out if the time arises. If that time arises and you give the right help then that in fact shows unity in the crew.

I guess double whistles are out of the question for you then. In my neck of the woods double whistles help solidify either your call or your partners.

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting you call marginal plays on top of your partners. I'm just talking about the WHALE plays that we all know we have to have a whistle.

Whats more important to you? Getting the play right or staying in your primary only and whatever happens out of it happens.

If you don't agree thats ok. It is what it is!!! I was just trying to make a point way early on that there are times you have to call outside of your primary. Somehow we got this far down the road. It's good discussion and maybe it helps somebody out.

Once again, I completely agree with the last post. At least there are a few of us who feel this way out there.

Maybe there is only a "few of you" you feel this way for a reason. ;)

Peace

Dude... thats harsh!!!! Your probably one of those guys who say its my way or the highway. You mean none of what I was saying makes any sense to you @ all.

I'm curious to the highest level you work @ now?

Whoa, don't throw that "You'll never move up unless you do it my way" nonsense in there. That boat don't float. That's <b>your</b> opinion only. My opinion is that if you're gonna be calling illegal backside screens all over the court, you've got a helluva lot better chance of moving <b>out</b> instead of moving up.

But that is exactly what some of you guys are saying. This is the way assignors want it called, so their way or the highway. You can't have it both ways.

And I think we are forgetting - assignors give out the games. They don't write the rules, they don't write the mechanics, and they certainly shouldn't influence who gets what games based on the ref's philosophy vs. their own. They should assign games based on ability level and fairness.

Are you saying that you wouldn't be willing to help on plays that are in your secondary and not in your primary? We were't talking about screens all over the floor. Take some time to read the entire post.

Nobody said that you would have to do it my way....Don't! I just can't believe that you can't see or agree that there are times when you will have to step up and get a call that may not be in your primary. If your the official who sees the WHALE play that I've been referring to and you and nobody else gets a whistle on the play. The tape WILL go to the supervisor. If on the film the play happenned in you secondary and you didn't get it what do you think the supervisor will ask you? He/She will ask did you see it? IF you say yes, but it wasn't in my primary..you would be the one that would bo on the hot seat. Your either out or going to lose games.

There are times in games where maybe you have nothing in your primary usually in the slot, and all the players are on the strong side of the floor. Center then is more likley to see BACKSIDE plays, better then Lead or Trail.
These are the plays where if center wasn't there we would be missing something as a crew.

Read the OP to understand why we got to where we are @.

Gimlet25id,

You keep talking about "excessive contact" as if that means there has to be a foul and all contact that is excessive is a foul no matter what. Then you refer to things like screens which by rule can have tons of contact and be legal.

I also never said there should not be double whistles. Good double whistles are usually a result of both officials calling the something in a dual or "fridge" area. Also many double fouls are in the lane. It is another thing to have a double whistle at the top of the key near the division line.

I did not realize that officiating is about one way or another all the time. Everything I do is to try to get plays right. What about concentrating on what I am supposed to do? What about trusting that my partner saw the entire play and I did not? When I hear people say, “get it right,” that often does not mean get what is right, it means, “get what I feel is right.” The problem is your partner(s) might have an opinion as well. I also would not feel this way if I have not had partners completely make calls all in my area and they called something that I felt was totally wrong. I have also heard the, “but it looked like that from where I was standing,” but they did not see the entire play the way I did or my other partner.

I do not feel I need to see everything all over the court. I am sorry, but I do not. I am not going to save a game with an illegal screen call. I would completely agree with you if we were talking about how we administer a technical foul or if we did not give the right kid the right to shoot FTs. I do not agree with you that when judgment is involved that we can simply get it right when we are not in position. You seemed to forget that usually the person that is looking at their primary is in position to see the play. The person not calling in their primary is likely out of position or looking around bodies to make a call.

What ever works for you I guess?

Peace