"Doing it right" vs. OOO

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

There's been a couple of threads recently that have prompted me to ask how people determine the difference between doing the right way, according to the rules, and still not be an "Overly Officious Official". I know this has to be a confusing thing for a new official; heck, I'm still trying to sort it out after all these years.

Be careful about the accusations of being an OOO on this board. What some readers/posters fail to realize, and find satisfaction in ridiculing, is that some people learn the basics and the middle-of-the-road situations by doing thought experiments at the boundaries of the rules....all without ever suggesting that they think such an extreme case is even likely to ever happen or that they would actually call it. It's a method of learning, not a query asking for support of a once in a million call. Some people find that, by fully and completely understanding the extremes of a the rules, they can then know where the reasonable, and sensible, appication of the rule lies.

Also, the presentation of absurd situations are not really an attempt to know what to do when such a situation occurs but are either a way to isolate a very specific issue from all other possibilities, or a way to isolate the intersection of two or more rules to understand how the two rules interact with each other. Again, these are learning tools and methods, not real world examples.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

For example, determining the OOB spot on a throw-in. Scrapper corrected my triangle picture, and he is right. But I've never gotten in trouble for putting the ball at the wrong spot, unless I totally blew the call. I think most would agree that putting the ball at the proper spot is important. But on the other end of the spectrum are the officials that tomegun will be working with - they probably feel the ball needs to be OOB, who cares if it's at the "exact, pin-point placement"? If you continue to put it at the proper spot, instead of occasionally at the "easiest" spot, are you being an OOO? How do you explain to someone that, in this case, they are lazy and you are "doing it right"?

Personally, I put it in at the "correct" spot almost exclusively.

On a few occasstions I may not. For example.... on a backcourt endline throwin with the entire defense racing down the court to set up in a half court defense, I just might take the easier side of the lane if I'm alreay there and the "correct" spot was just outside the lane on the other side.....why force my partner to switch (it's more of an impact on the new lead than me as the new trail) and delay the game with everyone looking at us when there is absolutely no benefit to either team either way. Note that I'm not suggesting a dramatic difference...just one side of the backcourt endline to the other.

Now, in the frontcourt, or under pressure in the backcourt, I'm taking it to the absolute correct spot all the time....even if it forces my parter to walk all the way across the court and we have to wait for them. In those situations, it matter.

That said, I have not problem with putting it in the "correct" spot EVERY time if that is what my partner wishes. I would never consider that overly officious.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Which then brings up the other situation, where the officials saw the removal of the jerseys after the game and called the T's. Why is the general consensus that the officials were OOO's, even though what they did was perfectly within the rules. How do you argue the point if they say they are "doing it right", while the officials that high-tail it out of there as quickly as possible are the lazy ones?

The big leap being made in that thread was that the offiicals lingered on the floor too long. There is no indication of that. There will always be those that will suggest that these were lessor officials having called it rather than consider that the players may have made it impossible for the officials to ignore. Perhaps the official still had his hands in the air for the 3-point try when the shirts were coming off right in front of him....as the buzzer was still sounding.

The points are still valid about getting out of dodge when business is done, but count how many people assumed the refs didn't vs. how many considered that they sufficiently quick.

I don't know if this particular case was well handled or not...did the officials leave promptly or hang around. Was it OO or was it necesary? I don't know. It could have been either. For anyone on here to assert one way or the other without seeing it or knowing the exact timing of the events is making an unfounded conclusion.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I'm not trying to argue each situation; that should be left for those individual threads. I'm just trying to find out how others draw the line, and how they would explain that to newer officials. Granted, there is probably a bit of "local" influence on that line, but I would think there is still a line somewhere.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

In each situation, I simply pause for a second and ask myself "WWJD?" which is short for "What would Jurassic do?"

Once I figure out the answer to that question, I simply do the opposite...hasn't failed me yet!

Hmmmmmmm.....

Might not be a bad idea in some situations.

[Nevadaref]

My opinion adheres to the NFHS POE from last season.
2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules.

Basically, if you just do it by the book, then you can always point to it in black and white whenever anyone questions your actions.


BTW proper throw-in location was a POE back in 2002-03.

[Scooby]

I always put the ball in play at the closes spot. That way everybody on the crew always knows where the ball is going to play. And even if you have to go the length of the floor and the proper placement is on the other side of the lane everybody on the crew always knows that you're going to switch to the other side. The center knows that he will be the new lead and the trail knows he will be going to center. Throughout the game everybody ends up running the same distance and that seems to be a big concern for officials out there. If you don't want to be running you probably shouldn't be an official.

[SMEngmann]

To kind of piggy back off of Nevada's post, doing things by the book will not get you in trouble, deviating probably won't get you in trouble, but if trouble comes, the trouble's big.

In my opinion being an OOO means calling a lot of plays that are "gotcha" plays that nobody understands. As officials, we want to call the obvious and use common sense. OOOs tend to lack common sense as they try to prove that they know every rule in the book. This is applicable at every level, and adhering strictly to the rules and the mechanics does not make someone overly officious, a lack of common sense does.

I agree that at higher levels, the more important to adhere strictly to the letter of the rules? Why? Because the rule book is your defense, and the coaches at that level are smart enough to know if you're setting things aside or not doing things properly. These little things give them ammo against you for later on. As an example, I was working in a national club tourney involving many former D1 players, and was watching courtside in a game after mine, when B1 clearly fouled A1 and the ball went OOB off A1. Official didn't call the foul and awarded the ball OOB to A1, at which point team B loudly complained about the call. The official said he was trying to save a foul, but the players wouldn't hear it, they even said, "Call the foul." At the lower levels, saving a foul is not a bad idea in this situation and can actually be good game management, but the official got himself in trouble by using it here and basically had to admit that he made a judgement outside the rules. Not good imho.

Another example is Joe DeRosa in the Finals a couple years ago with the TO called by Josh Howard. I heard him talk and he was asked why he granted the timeout even though he knew Dallas didn't want it called at that point, and his response was, "He called timeout." He followed the letter of the rule, which was backed up visually, and controversy or not, his call was obvious and backed up by rule. Contrast that to the Chris Webber game where the calling official missed an obvious and infamous travel because he turned his head to avoid acknowledging Webber trying to call the 6th TO earlier. There are proponents for both sides, but I personally would say DeRosa was more correct than the Webber official.