gps-7 the big picture

[DrakeM]

At least you seem to be getting the point.
There are different LEGITIMATE ways to referee a ball game.
Many who post responses to guys like Crew, Eli, myself, are of the opinion that the style or philosophies we state are
"heresy"and not practiced by anyone but a misguided few.
So, as you say. WHile working at the High School level,
referee the way you've been taught. But keep the things you read on this board in the back of your mind. You MIGHT
find a time,(even in a high school game) that they are helpful.
This board is all about learning and improving.
IMO all opinions, no matter how divergent, are welcome.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by DrakeM
At least you seem to be getting the point.
There are different LEGITIMATE ways to referee a ball game.
Many who post responses to guys like Crew, Eli, myself, are of the opinion that the style or philosophies we state are
"heresy"and not practiced by anyone but a misguided few.
So, as you say. WHile working at the High School level,
referee the way you've been taught. But keep the things you read on this board in the back of your mind. You MIGHT
find a time,(even in a high school game) that they are helpful.
This board is all about learning and improving.
IMO all opinions, no matter how divergent, are welcome.

And I appreciate that YOU are getting MY point, as well. Crew often seems to miss the point that you make above. I think this is because his HS assignor ( I think from his poists he still works a few HS games a year) seems to allow him to use his pro philosophies. So he appears to think they would work for everyone. (To see this in action, refer back to the posts about a month ago regarding block/charge and the pro "free circle" under the basket--I can't remember which "gps" number it was) I just want others to keep hearing the point that you make above that a ref whould use the philosophies and rules that are used by other refs in their area and at their level. These are how a ref will get ahead in the world.

[DrakeM]

I have to say that the Pro philosphies I have learned have helped me in the High School games I work. I guess it's probably because quite a few of our top officials are in agreement with some of those philosophies. So we can be consistent.
Now, have I called a PC foul on a player going to the basket
when the defender is practically under the rim? Yes I have. But I do so
knowing the difference between the two situations.(High school and Pro.)
So it's all up to the individual.

[stripes]

Originally posted by rainmaker

This is the point, and very well stated. Many, many people who read this board are in their first few years of officiating, and are not D1 or pro refs. Most of our assignors are not going to approve of the kinds of decisions that crew makes.

It is not hard to read between the lines a little and see that crew works at a very high level, and that he must be a very good ref, or he would not have gotten where he is today.

I do not disagree with what he says, as long as he makes it clear that it probably won't work for most of us. I could never get away with the judgements he makes. But it's fine for him. But I can't let him make blanket statements that sound as though they apply to every ref in every situation, when in fact most of us would be badly damaged in our careers to adopt his practices.

When I am in the D1 (as I hope to be some day) I will pay a lot more attention to what crew says. In the meantime, what I hear from my assignors and evaluators and clinicians goes totally opposite to what crew says. I have a feeling that most people on this board are in the same boat I am, with lots of Jr Hi and HS games and not much else. crew should be encouraging the up-coming officials to work to their local standards and not try to impose outside philosophies where they are not welcome. [/QUOTE]

I am no longer calling the "lower levels" of basketball, but my philosophy on calling the game has not changed a lot since I started. I looked at where I wanted to be and started calling the game they way that they did. Not all of my partners agreed with what I did or why, but I have risen thru the ranks and I have done it fairly quickly.

I don't believe that my career has been damamged in any way by adopting the "D1" philosophy. I also believe that it will work for most people.

If you wait until you are at the D1 level to call games that way, you will never make it to that level. I know that you have to be a "Roman in Rome" and I would neve encourage anyone to do differently for their own sake, but if you want to move up the ladder, you have to be willing to call it the way they like it. I know that as I read crew's comments, they definitely have a men's flavor to them (don't read this as a slam on women's basketball, the games are simply different and they are called differently), so this may not have as much application in the women's game, I don't know. I do know that the philosophies that crew espouses are accepted at the men's D1 level.

[Mark Padgett]

Since my main motivation at my advanced age is not to "move up" but to have fun and get exercise, my general philosophy is that if you disagree with the way a rule indicates a certain play should be called, work to change the rule. I routinely call PC fouls directly under the basket, because that's the way the NF wants it called, and until they tell me different, that's the way I will continue to call it.

Am I saying you cannot use good game management techniques and adjust your calls to grade level? Of course not. I'm saying put fairness to the kids first. They deserve their games (and they are their games)to be interpreted according to the rules, not a philosophy that is contrary to the rules because a particular official believes that's the way for him to "move up". And shame on those higher-ups that reward that behavior.

OK - off my soapbox for today (so far, anyway).

[Kelvin green]

I will agree with Drake. I was taught some philosophy and some mechanics by a couple of very knowledgeable pro refs. I learned some things in 1990 that were finally talked about in 1996 in the High school ranks. the things I learned helped immensely with calling the game. The point is that you can learn from anywhere and use them. Although the Federation Mechanics book is a guide, I find that it is marginal at best for some situations. There are very little discussions on strong side refereeing. There is little in the way of refereeing the defense. There are few discussions on what should happen when an official asks for help on an OOB, from a partner. etc ( ad nauseum). I have found that the NF is the slowest rules group to adapt, and is reluctant to change things that make sense for the game. Personally they are too worried about multiple fouls and false multiple fouls and the width of inseams on a jersey than they are taking a look at the poorly written rules that need a serious rewrite. I personally think that understanding the rules at all levels helps us referee the game, particularly when so many people watch the pro and college games and then watch NF games with their kids.

[ChuckElias]

Kelvin, I agree with some (quite a bit, actually) of what you wrote. I agree that once the "higher levels" try something out for a while and find that it works, that rule or mechanic very often filters down through the college ranks to HS officials. So talking about the what works in the pro game might conceivably help somebody, but they shouldn't use it in a HS game for another 5 or 6 years.

Also, I completely agree that the NF rulebook is WAY too concerned about uniform nonsense and length of fingernails and crap that is really none of the official's business.

But, if you are not hearing enough about strong-side officiating or about off-ball coverage or about partners helping each other out, then you need a new interpreter in your association. These are things that are addressed regularly at my association meetings. As you know, all of these topics have a huge impact on how an official calls a game; and to be a better official, you need to know how to do these things properly and consistently. Maybe I'm just fortunate to be in my association, but we are regularly instructed on how to use these and other techniqes to "see the whole play".

Just my thoughts.

Chuck