Communication to get call straight
 

Last night, boys varsity, last minute of a close game. Visitors make a steal and wind up with a 2 on none. B1 lays it up and as ball is on the rim A1 comes flying in and smacks the board. (the classic we're gonna lose now but look how high I can jump thing) Partner was lead, kinda right beside the play, he whistles and emphatically signals basket good. I blew my whistle to get his attention and called a quick huddle. "What did you call?" "Goaltending." "He didn't touch the ball." "Ball had already hit the board." "If he didn't touch the ball, it can't be goaltending." Well, it's a tech, anyway." He shrugged. I thought, uh-oh, he thinks, goaltending, bucket good, technical, close enough. I said, "Technical is what it is, or nothing. It's your call." He went over and huddled with home coach. I saw him gesture in my direction, so I think a part of his explanation was "cuz he said so." Home coach yelled across at me, "Does the basket count?" I shook my head no. Visiting coach meanwhile had a pained expression,
"What....what is the deal?" Partner simply said, "Technical foul." Home coach added, "You're getting the best of the deal." The ironic thing is that I think both coaches were happier with the wrong call than the right call. It turned out to be a non-issue. B missed both t shots, then inbounded, got fouled, and made both.

My question is, when I told partner it can't be goaltending, if he had refused to change the call, there would have been nothing further for me to do, right?

I was already mentally practicing saying, with a straight face, "He called goaltending, coach."

Who is the Referee? If you are the Referee you could change the call or make the proper call if you are in that position. Otherwise all you can do give the proper information and if he does not change it there is not much you can do at the moment. This is one of the rare moments where being the Referee really matters.

I do not know if I would say anything other than, "Ask the official when he comes in front of you."

Peace

So you have a technical on A1 for slapping the backboard while the try is on the rim, but why wouldn't you count the basket??

Exactly why isn't this basket interference? Count the bucket and penalize the T.....

Goaltending or Basket Interference has nothing to do slapping the backboard. You must touch the ball to have any GT. And you must touch the ball, net or rim while the ball is in the cylinder area in order to call BI at all. The backboard does not apply (unless the rules change at the NF or NCAA level). The only place this could be seen as a GT call that I am aware of is the NBA level.

Peace

Slapping the backboard is never BI or goaltending - the only determination is whether the slapping of the backboard was intentional. If it was, T. If not, there is no call.

So if you jump up and don't slap, but push the backboard and cause it to shake and the ball falls out, you don't have basket interference? I am not saying I'm calling it for the act of slapping itself, but when you slap the backboard, generally it shakes, if the ball comes out how can you not call BI?

Actually I'm not completely clear on the original post, did the ball come out or go through?

You can not call BI because there is no provision in the rules for you to call BI.

I don't have my rulebook with me, what does the BI provision say in regard to causing the basket to move? Again I am not talking about the act of slapping itself, agreed that is not BI.

If you were calling a game played under FIBA rules your partner would have been correct to call goal tending.;)

However, it sounds that you handled the situation correctly and got the play right. I hope you and your partner cracked open the book and went over what the correct application of the rule in your post game.

The only provision based on causing the basket to move is when a player pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position. There is a case play that indicates this also includes a ring that is still vibrating because of the original grabbing of the ring, but no provision for a vibrating ring due to slapping the backboard.

This is a very common misconception about BI - one that I used to have. In fact, I'm positive there was a thread about this sometime last year...

Wow this is definitely one that I have had forever as well...seems completely unfair, but thanks for the knowledge...

Certainly - the other important thing to know is that if a player goes up to block a shot and in the process unintentionally slaps the board hard enough to cause the ring to vibrate and the shot to be missed, there is still no call at all.

For all the folks asking this question, I posted the following in another thread, but it may be helpful again:

Goaltending (all 5 must be true to be GT):

1. Must be a try.
2. Must be on the way down.
3. Must be completly outside the cylinder.
4. Must be completely above the rim.
5. Must have a chance to go in.

Basket Interference (if any 1 of these happen, it's BI):

1. Can't touch the ball if it's in the cylinder.
2. Can't touch the basket or ball if it's on or in the basket.
3. Can't touch the ball (even outside the cylinder) after reaching through the basket.
4. If rim is moved, it can't contact the ball before returning to its original position.

To take this to an extreme, if you had a 7 footer you could camp him under the basket and tell him every time a shot goes up jump up and push the backboard with both hands....other than the risk you run of getting him tech'd for an unsporting act I suppose which would be specious...

The wording from Rule 10-3-5-b says, "Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate while a try or tap is in flight or is touching the backboard or is in the basket or in the cylinder above the basket." So I think whether they slap, strike, push, or whatever, it's a T.

There is no provision in the rulebook for you to call BI in this situation.

Look up rule 4-6 for a definition of Basket Interference, and as you read it, keep in mind that the backboard is not considered to be part of the basket.

That would stand to reason...I know that unintentionally slapping the board is not a tech, but before today I would have had BI....thanks again...

There goes my 7-footer example...:o

Causing the backboard to shake is only a T and is only a T when it is done without trying to purposely block the shot.

You need to refer to the BI and GT rules in Rule 9 and even the Technical Foul provisions in Rule 10. No where will you see this is GT or BI in any way. And as stated after your post, it was unclear if the ball went in. The basket should only count if there was a T called and the ball went in the hoop. You cannot count the basketball because of this.

Peace

If someone jumps up and "pushes" the backboard with both hands, he's only going to get to do that twice before he's disqualified in my game. :D

And if it's an actual blocking motion and a slap instead, but it happens on every shot, he's only going to get to do it one or two more times before I determine it's intentional...

I disagree with this assessment. Just because you are the Referee, and not U1 or U2 does not give you the authority to "overrule" your partner. Rule 2-6 states, "No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties."

I think that the best thing to do in a situation such as this is to talk to your partner and ask him why he called what he did. Then, if you believe he interpreted something incorrectly, let him know, and explain why. Then give him the opportunity to change his own call.

Did not go in.

Well I learned something new today. Like I said I don't like it, but that doesn't matter much!

He was actually the referee.

2-6: No official has the authority to set aside or question decisions made by the other official within the limits of their respective duties.

Nothing, except article 4:
Pulls down a movable ring so that it contacts the ball before the ring returns to its original position.

Rut is refering to 2-5-3, Referee's duties during the game: "Decide whether a goal should count if the officials disagree."

I am glad I read down and you referenced the exact rule I was referring to.

Peace

Do you see what I mean though about this being fundamentally unfair? If the ball happened to go in you would count it and still assess the T. Yet the reason it didn't go in (at least potentially) is b/c the act that brought the T caused it not to...I don't see the reasoning behind excluding the backboard from this provision, until they make rings that are detached from backboards and floating on their own, if you move the backboard you also move the ring! I would hope this would be addressed at some point, but I suppose there are bigger things...

I do not see why this is unfair. The rules just exclude the backboard. I guess they feel the backboard is not an initial part of making the basket. And honestly, I have never seen a ball not go in just because a backboard has been hit or shaken. Then again the issue is not always about fair, the issue is what the rules say. And if this was such a growing problem then maybe the rule would change. I do not think they have seen this as a major issue.

Peace

It is addressed. Read case book play 10.3.5(b).

You have separate calls and separate rules. Deliberately hitting the backboard or causing the ring to vibrate is a technical foul. Note the word "deliberately". It's a judgment call always. You can <b> legally</b>knock the hell out if the backboard if it's judged to be a part of a valid attempt to block a shot. That's rule 10-3-5(b). You can <b>only</b> penalize that act as BI or goaltending also if the act meets the criteria of BI under rule 4-6 or goaltending under rule 4-22. Simply hitting the board does not meet the definitions as described in those rules.

Note that the play in the original post is <b>NOT</b> a technical foul either if the official judged that the defender was legitimately trying to block the shot.

Glad I could help. :)

BI - GT - Backboard ????
 

A player cannot touch the ball, ring, or net while the ball is on the ring or within the basket. A player cannot touch the ball if it is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. These are examples of basket interference. It is legal to touch the ring or the net if the ball is above the ring and not touching the ring, even if the ball is in the imaginary cylinder above the ring. It is legal to hang on the ring if a player is avoiding an injury to himself or herself or another player.

The backboard has nothing to do with goaltending. Goaltending is contacting the ball on its downward flight, above the level of the rim, with a chance to go in. On most layups, the ball is going up after it contacts the backboard. It is legal to pin the ball against the backboard if it still on the way up and not in the imaginary cylinder above the basket. Slapping the backboard is neither basket interference nor is it goaltending and points cannot be awarded. A player who strikes a backboard so forcefully that it cannot be ignored because it is an attempt to draw attention to the player, or a means of venting frustration, may be assessed a technical foul. When a player simply attempts to block a shot and accidentally slaps the backboard it is neither a violation nor is it a technical foul.

I would think this is written with regard to a last second shot. The disagreement in this situation has to do with the call of goaltending. If goaltending is called, the basket definitely counts. Neither official has the authority to overrule the other's call of goaltending, no matter how wrong it may be. If the umpire waves off a basket because of a traveling call, the referee cannot count the basket because he feels the traveling call was incorrect.

Not relevant.

This is for a shot that does go in but is in question....did time expire or not, did two officials give opposing signals (good/no-good) on a buzzer shot, etc.

It is NOT to overrule the calling of an infraction that results in awarded/canceled points....to determine if there was GT or not. You can't overrule a partner's GT call and if you can't do that, you can't change the penalty for GT.

To add to others' input....it is a T to contact the backboard to gain an advantage....even if it doesn't vibrate. This might be seen by a player grabbing onto the board to hold on if they miss-time their jump for an alley oop....in hopes of still getting the ball....or, in the case of a defender, being near the rim to block an alley opp pass (or shot).

FYI. This question was based on the assumption that the basket was good in the OP. It wasn't clear (or I didn't read it good enough) that the ball never went in.

I knew it wasn't BI or GT. Thanks

That's because there's a thread about this every year.

I'd argue that 2-5-3 applies here.

Judgment calls cannot be overridden. Misinterpretations of rules can (carefully).

You might be completely right. But from what I am reading the rule does not classify that position one what kind of situation the basket can be changed. And personally I would not want to count a basket that is erroneously awarded. Now if the ball goes in than it is not much of a problem. I would just do everything I could to get that call changed. And if the official insisted on sticking with his call, he would be on his own to get out of it. I would be explaining his ruling. I would not sell him out either, I just would not be apart of the explanation.

Also in reality, many people that are assigned the Referee position are given that responsibility to get out of these kinds of situations. I know what the rule says, but if you allow an obvious rule misapplication, you all will go down potentially and often they look at the Referee.

Peace

2-5-3: The referee shall decide whether a goal shall count if the officials disagree.

5-1-1: A goal is made when a live ball enters the basket from above....

In this case there was no goal, but rather points awarded as the result of an infraction.



Around here the title Referee does not carry a lot of weight. It is usually decided by the 2 officials just before they take the court. "You wanna talk to
'em?" "I will or you can. Whatever."

The thing that is important in this case is that it was so easy for me to see what had (not) happened. The guy was not close to touching the ball. I would have called the T from trail (and a long way from the play) if my partner had not blown his whistle. If there had been even the slightest possibility that the call was correct, I probably would have said nothing. And it now seems that I was the only one in the gym that knew what the correct call was. Neither coach appeared to be upset by the goaltending call. Yes, I know keeping people happy and getting a call correct often have little to do with each other.

Thanks, that casebook play spells out the difference clear as day...I would still like to see it changed to where if you cause the ring to move while the ball is on it, it is BI...to me there should be no difference "why" the ring moved, if it moved it potentially had an impact on why the shot did not go in which would seem to be the whole reason behind why you score the goal when you have BI in the first place..the intentional contact with the backboard is completely separate as you all point out, therefore it should continue to carry its own penalty, but I don't see why you can't change the rule to penalize both in that situation (might have the side benefit of cutting backboard slapping down even further)...but again, they didn't ask for my input...thanks again to all for the good info...

I think the times that the backboard is slapped or even pushed such that the ball doesn't go in, and that's the only reason the ball doesn't fall, are extremely rare. I agree that it can happen, but I think the sportsnamship of slapping just for kicks, is the reason for the T, and the "vibrating the ring" issue is just separate. In general, the BI of moving the ring by hand is a lot more of an issue and a lot more likely to happen.

IF you give a T every time the board is slapped gratuitously, the slapping will be less and less. If you wait and give BI when the slap vibrates the ring, you'll have lots more slaps to see if they can get away with it.

Note that the violation is called <b>basket</b> interference. It isn't <b>backboard</b> interference. Imo there is no way for any official to <b>definitively</b> know that any backboard slap actually did cause a ball to spin out of the basket. And if there is no way to <b>definitively</b> know, you might be penalizing a player for an act that had no affect on the play.

There is provision now in the rules to penalize <b>both</b>, but only if <b>both</b> are committed <b>on</b> the basket. That's case book play 9.11.1SitB. If you do cause the ring to vibrate by actually hitting the ring(as per 10-3-5b), and if the ball is on or in the basket when you smacked the ring, you could also call both the "T" and BI in that case too.

Is it possible that 2-3 applies here? Misapplication of this rule seems different than 2-5-3, but a disagreement about the proper penalty and/or application of a rule does not seem to be covered anywhere.

2-3...The referee shall make decisions on any points no specifically covered in the rules.

Yabut, the play in question is "specifically covered in the rules", with the penalty (if one) all spelled out. If the calling official says BI or GT and won't change, too bad for the crew. The call stands.

Does not apply. The proper ruling is quite clearly specified in the rules.

2-5-3 is not going to apply either. This isn't about whether or not a goal scores. The matter of goaltending or BI is about an awarded basket. The referee has no more jurisdiction to reverse an umpires GT call than he does to reverse a traveling call or foul call. Even based on the misapplication of a rule.

The best that can be done is to present the calling official with the proper information and hope he/she will make the proper ruling.

I completely understand what you're saying - however, I do think there's something to this conversation. This isn't a case where one says he touched the ball in the cylinder and one says he didn't. Or one says he moved his pivot foot and one says he didn't.

This is a case where both officials agree exactly on what happened, and one is trying to enforce a rule that simply doesn't apply. To me, it's much more similar to both officials getting together after an Intentional Foul call and one saying the "ball will be inbounded closest to the call" and the other "the ball should be inbounded at mid-court."

Someone is going to have to make that final call, and I guess the question is does the referee have additional authority to make the final decision there?

None of these examples exactly mirror what happened, so I guess that's part of the problem.

But this was not a case of "Here is what happened, what is the call?" Neither was it a case of "Here is the call, what is the penalty?" There was no question of the penalty for either goaltending or a technical foul. The part in question was getting my partner to change the call from goaltending to a technical foul. If he had said "Nope, this is goaltending because it's Tuesday and he blocked the shot with his right hand," there would have been nothing I, or anyone else could have done about it.

If I am the "R", there is something I can do. I will not kick a rule simply because my partner doesn't want to change his call, especially in this case (goaltending vs. technical foul). If he doesn't change the call, then I will. He can report me to the assignor, state and everybody else. Here's why I say this. A1 driving for a layup, lays it up, B1 comes in and slaps the crap out of the backboard, intentional/unintentional who cares, it causes the ball to fall of the rim. You can't apply the goaltending rule and award the 2 points, because this is clearly not goaltending. You can call a technical and award 2 free throws and the ball. BUt you can't count the basket. We've all seen funny bounces or in & outs, so we don't know for certain if the layup was going to fall, but if you misapply the rule and count the basket, and everybody in the gym knows that couldn't be a goaltending, when that tape gets sent into the state and your assignor, the one who is going to take in the butt is the "R". Yes, I am fully aware of what Rule 2.6 says, but I am also aware that the 1st Code in the Officials Code of ETHICS says that we must MASTER the rules of the game, and we, as officials, should always try and get the call right. My .02.

After reading my post, I do want add that if I am the R, I am giving that official every chance in the book to change his call, even if I have to quote rule citation, section and page number :D .

Can you do what you are saying? Probably, unless your partner refuses to give in and continues to report/attempt to enforce his own call. (this, to me, is worst case scenario) Is what you are trying to do reasonable? Yes. Is what your are trying to do supported by rule? No.

I had a similar play just this weekend. I worked my annual "do a good deed" kids tournament for free (I actually enjoy it). Our last game was the 8th grade boys championship. We worked 3 man, one newer official, one that works a lot of college and myself. With about a minute left, the team that was ahead goes in for a lay up, misses it and the defender that was trailing the play brushes the net with his hand. He didn't grab it, didn't move the rim, I have nothing from C. Our L, the newer guy, hits his whistle and gives me the "that is something isn't it?" look. I knew right away what he was thinking and ran in to conference right away. I told him that there was nothing to be called so we have to go to the AP (no team control because of the shot) and inbound the ball. My other experienced partner explained it to the coaches and away we went. I'm sure it would have been a much tougher sell at the end of a close varsity game. BTW, after the game I talked to the guy that was L about not looking up from L.

I completely understand the "an official has no authority to set aside another officials call...", but if you know for a fact that one of your crew member is about to kick a rule where it can determine the outcome of the game, you may want to think hard about letting that happen. Somebody made you an "R" for a reason. Many of us have seen where referee careers were made for the good and the bad in situations like that. Many of us know of officials that have lost many assignments because they chose to kick a rule. Me personally, that's the first thing I say in my pre-game, and that is we will not kick a rule tonight, not intentionally that is.

Which is worse, to misuse your power and throw a partner under the bus? Or to allow your crew to make a bad call that changes the outcome of a game? That's Hobson's choice in a nutshell. Proceed with great caution!!

Ah, the decline of education is rearing its head, and myself is saddened. ;)

Juulie, all I can say is wow.

If you are certain your partner kicks a rule fix it. Period.

Easy example: A has the ball in their back court for 8 seconds when granted a time out. Your partner at T calls a BC violation after 2 seconds, saying by rule A does not get a fresh 10 seconds. What do you do? Worry about your partner's feelings? I hope not.

Tell your partner he's not officiating in Europe any more, and we don't use metric rules here.

As stated earlier, I was not the referee, partner was. Around here, who is the referee means very little, and in this particular case meant nothing.

I did not let it happen. I did what I could, which was give my partner all the information I had which was relevant to the rule and the call. He corrected the call, but had he not, I see no way that I could have.

About the closest thing I ever had to a standoff with a partner during a game involved the throw-in spot after a foul. I reported the foul, and turned to see partner holding the ball at the endline. I blew a quick whistle and pointed to the sideline. Partner did not move. (maybe he didn't see me, I thought) I took a few steps closer, and again indicated that the spot was on the sideline. He, obviously annoyed, gave in and moved. I heard some snickers and later heard some comments from people who thought the whole thing was funny.

Using all available resources to get every call right goes without saying, but the importance of an officiating crew presenting a united front should not be underestimated.

And that statement could equallly be applied to a real BI or GT call too. The defense is penalized even when the shot may have missed...we'll never know. So, that is not a sufficient reason to favor or oppose a rule change on making backboard contact the same as BI.

I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not trying to be obnoxious here. I'm asking for information, okay?

I know we've hashed through this before, but I was never certain where we came out. How do you "...fix it. Period." ? If the partner gets stubbonr and obnoxious (worse than me for instance!) what do you do?

Kick him (I'm assuming "him" because "her"s never get stubborn and obnoxious) in the shins.

Well, yea, but do you let the coaches see you do that? Or keep it in a closed huddle away from the bench?

You tell him he's wrong and you tell him we're changing it and you tell that you'll take the complete responsibility for it.

That said...obviously if you're working with someone who's not entirely....let's say in touch with when he should back off then at some point you'll need to let it go. But it would take a special kind of jerk to not back off when approached in the way I suggest.

Thanks. That's helpful

SO just for my own edification...

Partner blows whistle, signals. I double tweet, dash in for quick chat, then let partner change it, right? go with IW. But if he tries to refuse, you insist once, twice, then just back off?

Do you ever go to the table, or just announce to the coaches, and say, "It was an IW and we're giving it back to A on the sideline with a new 10?"

1) I wouldn't insist. Give your partner the info. Tell him that you're sure that his call was wrong, and then leave the final decision up to him.

1) You don't take the lead in anything. Your partner made the call and it's up to him whether he goes with it or changes it. If your partner changes it, your partner should be the one to explain <b>why</b> he is doing so to <b>both</b> head coaches. Once you gave your partner your input, you're done except for listening.

JMVHO

Yup. Now that I'm only teaching math my English skills must be falling apart. If they get any worse, I'll have to go teach the college prep class in Baxter. :D

It would also take a special kind of jerk to insist that his partner has to change his call when his partner fully believes that he <b>didn't</b> screw up.

The guy that made the final call is gonna end up taking the heat anyway, no matter whether it's the guy who won't change the original call or of it's the guy that insisted that the original call was wrong and talked his partner into changing it. And that's exactly the way it should be.

I'm not sure what you're asking but I wouldn't change anything without discussing with the crew. I don't usually work with this type of jerk (they tend to exhibit other modes of jerkosity) so when i go to someone or someone comes to me we all tend to think twice before responding. Then if there's disagreement or uncertaintly we discuss for a brief (brief!) time before we all agree on what to do next. If there's a disagreement we live with it, but we walk out of the huddle smiling and nodding our heads.

The fireworks wait for the locker room. :)

What he said.

Out of curiousity, can either of you or both give a brief summary of how this conversation would take place once in the locker room? I guess I am asking because being a younger official, I'm wondering how would I address this? I often don't express myself well when I'm a little hot under the collar, and I think I would be in this situation, once we got back to the locker room. Thanks.

"Hey, dufus, here's my rulebook: read 4-6 again and tell me that was basket interference!"

Newer officials must have their heads spinning. In other threads, they are being told not to throw their partners under the bus even when they obviously screw up (e.g., calling over and back on a dribbler whose 3-points have obviously not yet crossed the division line). And, here, there are being told to fix a partner's kicked rule, "Period."

I think JR's advice in this thread is the best for all these situations: go to your partner with information, let your partner exercise her/his judgment with this new information, and then live with her/his judgment. This would have worked in the "frustrating" partner thread, too. Go to your partner, ask what he saw, when he says that the dribbler's foot crossed the line, remind him of the rule and then give him an opportunity to be the big man and change his call. If he refuses to change, well, you've done *your* job. The school hired a three-person crew (or a two-person crew) to work the contest, they did not hire you alone and they are not paying you extra to be the crew hero.

And I agree with others who are of the opinion that it matters not whether or not you are the "referee" on the game. Rut's opinion that the referee has the authority to overrule the call in the OP does not have a basis in the rules (as was pointed out by JAR's rules citations).

Hopefully, we do not run into mules (too stubborn to change their call) too often. One thing we can control is our commitment to not becoming that kind of an official. Listen closely to your partner(s) if they come to you with information/wisdom and then make the best call you can, confident and secure that you will have the support of your crew mates.

You mean me? I'm not getting into a shouting match over some call. If I had to come in & save your azz then I aint taking sh1t about it later.

Right. I agree with this. But I know there are people who read the sentences "Get the call right no matter what" "Fix it. Period" and think that it means overruling. I just wanted to be sure I saw it spelled out clearly so that I could know for sure, and also so I can yell at anyone who tries to do the overrule thing on me. Although I have never displayed the jerkiosity that would require it.

Which brings up another question....

What should I do when I call something, I'm right by rule and by judgment, and my partner comes it to change it? He (she's never do this, right, Snaqs:eek: ?) keeps insisting, and then finally steps out and overrules me. Do I just go with it? Im asking what to do there and then, not what to do in the locker room!

See, Dan? This is the kind of mis-reading what you wrote that I was thinking of.

Bgtg, read his other post about coming in with information and letting the calling official make the change.

I'm not all that concerned with what others post here, nor am I concerned with how you interpret my posts (I guess I'm channeling Jeff again here big time...). But I wil try 1 more time...

If you know a partner kicked a RULE (not a judgement call) then you fix it. Period. In your BC violation case I cannot for the life of me imagine ever going to the T to question what he saw. Maybe you would...I would not.

Again, in my world if someone comes to me with a rule I may be about to kick I'm stopping and listening. That trust your partner thing...? Goes both ways. I already told you what to do.

The crew makes a decision. You do know how to work with others to come to a decision...right?

First of all if you are going to disagree with my point of view, at the very least accurately disagree with the point I was making. I did not say overrule. I did not even use that terminology. And if you disagree on the reason a basket should count, the Referee has some authority in that area. And I would even extend that issue to a couple of partners that disagree on a call; someone has to have to break the tie if you will. And this is not a judgment call; this is an obvious rules mistake so bad that something needs to be done. And in most situations if you are the Referee (at least that I am aware of) all officials are going to go down, not just the calling official if you let an obvious rules mistake go without any change.

Peace

BG does raise a valid point though about the confusion...I like you cannot ever imagine going to the T to question him in that backcourt situation either. What it seems to come down to in this case is that with the backcourt case, your partner blew the ball dead. At that point you are probably going to have something and if he makes a call you are probably going to just run with it and write it off (to yourself of course) to his poor judgement (or lack of rules knowledge) if you know for a fact that he kicked it. With the GT/BI vs. Tech scenario, both officials had a dead ball, the clock was killed, at that point you can get together and decide what you have. If you know for a fact that your partner is wrong you have an opportunity to correct him b/c regardless of the outcome you both had a dead ball. Picture doing the same with the BC scenario, are you going to run over there and correct him and then if he agrees just go with an IA whistle and give A the ball back? Makes your partner look like he had no clue what he was talking about. In the other example, the two of you get together, figure it out, then when you break the huddle, you all look like you know what you are doing by making the correct call....sorry if this is rambling, but I think the fine point/difference here is that with the BC scenario your parnter put himself out on an island, there isn't really a graceful way to get him off...with the GT/BI vs. Tech scenario, you have two whistles, you get together, figure it out and all come out smelling like roses...

I don't know how to do that face and clapping hands thing, if I did it would be very appropriate for this post. You and Dan are saying it best, judgement calls is one thing; you won't hear a peep from me unless you ask for help or give me the confused look like you need help... Kicking a rule, that's a different beast and it shouldn't happen. And not to overstate the obvious, but the worse time to kick a rule would be the end of the game.

In regards to the highlighted portion of your post, every young "R", as well as young official needs to know that their decisions can be costly in their advancement in this avocation. I've seen more then one good official get bounced back to JV, or U2 because he couldn't handle being an R and by allowing rules to be kicked all over their games.

The only grey area here is that how do you know if your partner made an error in judgement or if he/she actually kicked a rule? The BC example for instance, if it is clear to you that it wasn't BC, how do you know if they just saw something different or if they truly don't know the rule? I am with you 100%, I just think this is causing a little confusion....

A couple of things need to be mentioned. This is not the Lead's call (BC or GT call). It is that simple either way you slice it. Then I am going to approach them and tell them, yu could not have what you just called. For one on a GT call you must touch the ball. I can clearly tell them the defender did not touch the ball or in the case of a BC violation, how the ball got to the backcourt. This is not just a judgment issue, this is someone is calling something they are not in position to see or they could not rule on such a thing.

Once again, you can get caught up in the minutia of the rules, but then when you have no games because you allowed such an obvious mistake to go off. And that is why there are provisions for the Referee to take care of situations that are not clearly labeled in the rulebook. I would rather be slightly off with the rules than sitting completely at home because I did not want to correct an obvious mistake. Just look to the college ranks, they do not just get the person that made the mistake, they fine or suspend all officials at the scene of the crime. And at the College level the Referee holds a lot of reverence in practice. There is a reason you always see the top officials as the Referee. Where I live similar attitudes are put in place at the HS level (when it is assigned).

Peace

Well, I"m getting better at it. Over time. But there are a few people that can just be so difficult...

In the OP, I would have to say that it was his call. We have a steal near the division line, and two greyhounds took off on a two-on-none break. What we actually had for a few seconds, if you will, was a trail and a trail-er. When partner made the call, he was probably at the halfway point of the lane. I was somewhere approaching the division line. Read all the mechanics manuals you want, it still won't help you keep up with 17 year olds.

Some of us are the R because we take turns with our partners and it's our turn. I have no more authority in this area as R than I do as U (or U1/U2).

Then again, usually when I say something's a rule, people do listen.

This is one advantage to having a regular partner or crew. If I come in and tell my partner something like this, he'll say "OK" and change it. He knows I'm not coming unless he's really screwed up.

It's happened once in the past six years where he's kicked a rule -- changing the arrow on an AP throw in when he shouldn't have. We got together and he changed his ruling based on what I said, even though he still wasn't sure himself -- but he knew I wasn't coming unless I was 100% certain and he wasn't certain himself.

It's different everywhere, the importance put on the referee. It's like the crew chief in college baseball -- I am usually assigned that way and all it means at the small college level is that I have to fill out any paperwork afterwards.

Things could change now that a designated tosser can be assigned. I hate tossing a jump ball, personally, so I'll be trying to get out of that more this season, even when it's my turn to be the R. Thank goodness the AP arrow was put in place right before I started officiating.

First of all the Lead should not be making these kinds of calls. I made one of these calls during a college game about 3 years ago as a reaction to a quick play and my partner's disagreed with the call. So leave this to the Trail and Center officials. The Lead official does not have the perspective if they are doing their job to make this call properly. It is not about the mechanics book, it is about angles and being in position.

Secondly, if you cannot keep up with kids that are 17 year old and you are beat that badly, it is time to find some other level to work. About 2 weeks before the season I had a ruptured hamstring that I rehabbed for two weeks. When I came back for my first basketball, I could keep up adequately with 17 year olds. And I am in great shape and I hustle often (which is why I got hurt in the first place). Even if a player makes a steal and you get beat badly, you should not be so focused on the ball from the Lead position.

Peace

Thought this thread was over, didn't see the last couple of posts until now.
You are going to have to draw me a picture here. This is a two whistle game.
Ball is knocked into the backcourt and B1 and B2 race each other to pick it up, which B1 did, probably about the top of the key. They proceeded to finish a two on none break, then A1 came in and slapped the board after the fact. So, if we would have had two of you calling this game, spell it out for me where you would have been positioned, before and after the steal.