2-man To question...

[Old School]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

That's because I didn't write a discription. In my description, I didn't clarify where the front of the circle is, because I know of no definition that determines where the front of the circle is. Is it the R's side of the cirlce or the U's side of the circle? And why?

Well, that point is about as dumb as my mispelling of description. The front of the circle is determined by the table, period.

My text probably isn't the best for newer officials such as yourself.

Not trying to get into a pissing match here but you should understand that a veteran official did not ask this question and i simply wanted to clarify what you stated in the interest of the person asking the question, in case he didn't have a clue of what you just stated. I have been officiating since 1990 and I struggle with that definition. Sometimes, we are our own worse enemy's.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

Sometimes, we are our own worse enemy's.

"Our own worst enemy's" what?
Our own worst enemy's friend?
Our own worst enemy's lawyer?

Originally Posted by Old School

I have been officiating since 1990 and I struggle with that definition.

Also, just for clarification. That fact that something confuses you does not make it confusing.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Old School

"...You should understand that a veteran official did not ask this question...."

John Bark has been around here for 5 years. Yes, he is an experienced official.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by mick

John Bark has been around here for 5 years. Yes, he is an experienced official.

I don't care how long Mr. Bark has been officiating, this is what he said....

i worked my first 2-man last night with my usual partner.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

I don't care how long Mr. Bark has been officiating, this is what he said....

i worked my first 2-man last night with my usual partner.

Again, read more slowly. Speed reading is getting you into trouble.

In particular, the part in red indicates he has officiated quite a bit. Implied in this statement is the following phrase: "since the change." Now, reading slowly, you should be able to place that phrase in the proper place in the sentence. I'm pretty sure my 2nd grader could do it.
Also, the fact that it was his first 2-man indicates he has been officiating 3-man; not something rookie officials normally get to do.

So, read more slowly. It might end up saving us all a lot of time.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Old School

Well, that point is about as dumb as my mispelling of description. The front of the circle is determined by the table, period.

Can I get that on official Old School Approved Ruling letterhead?

Originally Posted by Old School

Not trying to get into a pissing match here but you should understand that a veteran official did not ask this question and i simply wanted to clarify what you stated in the interest of the person asking the question, in case he didn't have a clue of what you just stated. I have been officiating since 1990 and I struggle with that definition. Sometimes, we are our own worse enemy's.

Wow; in 7 years here, I'd never thought of such a thing. Thanks! (Is a smilie required?)

[mick]

Originally Posted by Old School

I don't care how long Mr. Bark has been officiating, this is what he said....

i worked my first 2-man last night with my usual partner.

Oh, my !
You need to put all the words together in order to get the true meaning.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Old School

I'm not sure this is the way it was several years ago, but I think the way you stated it is confusing. The non-inbounding official should be at center court in front of circle, 30 second TO, table side, back of circle center court for full TO. I didn't quite get this for your discription.

I probably shouldn't respond, but FWIW, I find your explanation more confusing than the other. For example, I have no idea what "table side, back of circle center court" means.

In any event, I'm sure that the OP now knows where to stand (by the book, and recognizing that it might be different in his / her association).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I probably shouldn't respond, but FWIW, I find your explanation more confusing than the other.

Sounds like tennis to me.

[Splute]

I like SWMOzebra's approach. I will inquire tonight at our chapter training what our method will be. I still want to check on fouls, t.o.s remaining, etc at every opportunity.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Splute

I like SWMOzebra's approach. I will inquire tonight at our chapter training what our method will be. I still want to check on fouls, t.o.s remaining, etc at every opportunity.

You feel the need to know what:

Fouls per team ?
Fouls per best player ?
Time-outs remaining ?

Why?

[Splute]

Originally Posted by mick

You feel the need to know what:

Fouls per team ?
Fouls per best player ?
Time-outs remaining ?

Why?

No, not for implied favoritism, for knowledge of where I am in the game. How many t.o.'s each coach has remaining. Are we approaching a possible extra time out call? If a player is in foul trouble it keeps me aware that we may soon have an interupter to replace a player and I would like to expedite the process and manage the remaining players. In my mind it keeps me focused on the game. Based on your question, do you feel this information is not necessary? Am I considering things that are wasting my time?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Splute

No, not for implied favoritism, for knowledge of where I am in the game. How many t.o.'s each coach has remaining. Are we approaching a possible extra time out call? If a player is in foul trouble it keeps me aware that we may soon have an interupter to replace a player and I would like to expedite the process and manage the remaining players. In my mind it keeps me focused on the game. Based on your question, do you feel this information is not necessary? Am I considering things that are wasting my time?

If you think a team might be out of time outs, you could check so you can notify the coach.

If you think a team might be near 7 or 10 fouls you can check so you can help avoid a correctable error.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mick

You feel the need to know what:

Fouls per team ?
Fouls per best player ?
Time-outs remaining ?

Why?

The only thing out of that list I care to know is the team foul situation. But I will not go out of my way to the table to figure it out. Usually this information is on the scoreboard and if I just look up that will be answered for me. I do not want to be at the table during timeouts unless there is a problem that needs to be addressed. These situations are not problems.

Peace

[Splute]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you think a team might be out of time outs, you could check so you can notify the coach.

If you think a team might be near 7 or 10 fouls you can check so you can help avoid a correctable error.

Wouldn't a T.O. be a good time to do this? I also check the score at breaks to hopefully avoid possible errors later. Any other suggestions on administrative techniques? Are there routines that many of you follow?