"Doing it right" vs. OOO

[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.