the big picture

this happened last yr. here is the setup. - i am lead opposite table and my friend is slot table side and of course trail opposite table as well.

the play. - player b1 in front of a1 and both are jockying for rebounding positioning. as the rebound comes off the rim they are still battling though i think b1 is the aggressor and the ball subsequently goes out of bounds off a1. i blow my whistle and signal loose ball foul(pro mech.) though i never identify whom the foul was on or which direction we would be going(but i had the foul on b1, staying in the front court, btw this was a tough play to judge). as i am walking to the table to report i notice everybody(players and partners) are walking to the other end of the court. now i say to myself, "i must have blown the sh1t out of this play." so i report "a1-looseball foul this way." and nobody realized that my original intent was to assess the foul to b1.

after the game my partners(whom are a lot more exp. than i) and i are talking about plays and they never brought up the play i just described, so i bring it up. they said that it was marginal and could have probly passed on it. then i tell them the truth. they actually loved the way i handled the situation and thought that it was best for the game and the credibility of the crew. because i could have reported the foul on b1 and made everybody come back down the court and kill our credibility even more than i have already.

this is when i finally figured out the big picture.

I get it.Blow your whistle.Conduct a poll.Then make your call according to the majority.Great idea.Do you pre-game this procedure now?
Btw,did this happen in an NBA game you were doing?

I know the "bird dog" probably isn't required at that level, but I think the big picture is to indicate who fouled whom when the play could be close.

To any readers who haven't yet figured out yet that CREW just likes to push buttons:

Remember that CREW is supposed to have a little crawler running under his posts that says, "The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily approved by the management of this board, nor of most other Federation boards across the U.S. Check with your assignor or commissioner before trying this stunt in your area."

Yeah, crew's what we call a troll. Not to be believed.

Like my Technical Foul Disclaimier: "Note: I work rec ball!"

Good idea, Juulie!

i am not saying to take a poll. i am saying that what i saw did not actually happen. i admit i kicked the call. but by the way the play was handled no one knew i missed it but me(and the tape of course).
its similar to this play: the lead official blows his whistle for an out of bounds call that is in the far corner from him. he is not 100% sure who knocked the ball out but by the reaction of his partner(whom is now in transition to the other end of the court) he knows which way the ball should go. i have done this before instead of asking for help, sometimes you can tell who hit the ball out of bounds by the reaction of players, and partners. this is something you can opt to do when you have worked with a certain crew quite a few times and are on the same page.

OR...you could do your job right the first time and not have to worry about changing calls or using pro mechanics or any of that other stuff!! :)

i dont get it. what was wrong about what i did, except kick a play.

Tony--

You're my hero. Do you post these hoping to make them better or do youjust like the verbal abuse?

BTW--good job on the call.

Remember Grasshopper,
with more wisdom, also comes more condemnation!;)

I think he enjoys the verbal abuse. It gets him charged up for his next assignment!!

What was wrong about what you did, is that you tried to justify yourself, and claim that it was okay because you were "seeing the big picture". On this board, it's okay to say, "Oh, my gosh, I may never work again after the screw-up I pulled the other night." But instead, you say, "That is when I finally figured out the big picture." and, "It was the best thing fo1r the game and the credibil2ity of the crew3." It sounds as though you 4are even recommending5 5to others that 6they 7call fouls on the 8wrong person, or even 9call phantom fouls10, if it will "be the best thing for the game" 4 If that 7is not what y8o7u were saying, you should probably word your posting differently.28

(Can any5one tell5, at a glance, w2hen 2m2y 3-year-old woke up!!??)

My take on what Tony is saying is that many times players will give themselves away, and if we take our time, maybe hold the whistle a little bit, we have a chance to make right on a call that is wrong, before anyone even realizes what happened.
Picture a ball going out of bound with two players chasing it. You do not REALLY see who it went off of, but you are 95% sure so you are ready to point one direction or the other, when one of the players hangs his head and starts walking the other way. Hold the whistle and the player has just helped you make the call. This all take place in probably less than 1 or 2 seconds!
Now I do not know Tony personally. But we have been taught
by the same people. I know that Tony will NOT knowingly call a "phantom" foul, but I think he is aware of foul totals in agame and if a player has 4 fouls and another has none, he will give the foul to the latter if possible.
Fans come to see players play, not foul out.
What is the harm in keeping a good player in the game?
At the D1 and Pro levels, this is called "game awareness"
At the High School level, it's called "unethical"!
Long live the Dark Side!:cool::D:cool:

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.

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.:D

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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