How do you handle this situation.
 

Last night during a freshman game I'm in trail and on the table side. A1 has ball free throw line extended half way between lane and side line. B1 cleanly knocks ball out of A1 hand and the ball goes down and hits A1 on the foot and rolls out of bounds. I clearly see this like I was standing right next to them. In fact I'm so sure of it I turn to start down the court to take my place as lead.

Partner with 10 years of experience gives the ball to team A saying the B knocked it out of bounds. I blew my whistle and got together with my partner to tell him what I had seen and he was very much did not want to hear anything I had to say. I now return to my trail position and play resumes. Keep in mind team B coach pretty much has the same angle on this play that I do and wants an explanation on what happened.

How do you handle this with your partner and then how would you handle it with the coach. In my mind my partner very much blew this call. This only being my first year I'm not 100% on to handle this with a partner that has a lot more experience then I do

Thanks Guys and Gals

Andrew

Was it your line or his line?

It was his line. I understand where you are going this this but it was one of those calls that everyone knew what the correct call was. I also understand that we don't always get them all right. My point being is that he didn't want to hear anything I had to say about it.

If it's his line, you can offer what you saw, but it's still his call. Direct the coach's questions to your partner.

3 man, baseline is lead's, primary, right? Play is high in the Cs primary passed ball is slightly deflected off of player above free throw line, exiting the court on the baseline. Lead makes signal you as C know is wrong, you go to him and give him the information he still want to stick to his call. Do you "just let it go" when you know it is wrong just because it is "his line"?

What's your other choice? Rock, paper, scissors at midcourt?

That was too flippant. Sorry. Some people recommend saying something like, "I'm 100% sure it's white ball, and I will take full responsibility for the call if the supervisor is called."

But if that's not good enough, you can't just stand there and argue about it for 5 minutes.

Bingo.

You've heard the best answers. You did all you could do. Ultimately it is your partner's call. Good to see another Iowan around. What area do you work?

Concur. You offered to correct it based on what you saw. He declined. His call. Defer to him. If coach wants explanantion - it's his. Walk away and put it in your kit bag for when you're senior and the same thing happens to you.......and you hopefully handle it differently. As was stated, ya can't argue it. Let it go.

Junker,

I'm working in central Iowa mostly lower level CIML stuff. All two man. What about yourself?

Same, but not lower level. We are off to Fort Dodge tonight. Waukee is the visitor. Are you a 1st year guy or have you been around for a while? We might have worked together. If you have questions or anything my email is on the Metro website. It'll be pretty easy to find me under the J's.

Junker you have mail.

Andrew:

It was the Lead's sideline and according to you he was the only one that saw the play differently. I had a play earlier this month with my son. I was T opposite the Table. He was L table side. A rebound came off to my side and the ball went out of bounds on his endline. From my angle it looked like it went off V1 and the crowd thought the same way. But none of us had the angle he did and he gave it to Team H. From his angle he might have seen it differently than you and unless you are 200% sure, then let him live by his call. I was not 200% sure so I let my son's call stand. Remember the game is about angles most of the time.

MTD, Sr.

This is how you handle it regardless of the relative amount of experience. If you both have 25 years experience, and you've worked NBA and he hasn't, you still can't override him. You can only offer your own perspective (and only if you're 100% certain, as you were) and then let him decide what to do with that info. You did it right, and overall handled the whole thing better than partner did. Good job!

I want to make sure of what I have read so far

Ball is at FT line extended... Was it above or below?
Ball goes out of bounds at lead's sideline.

In games around here if it is above FT kine extended the sideline is trail's first shot...

We would be pregaming it... but it may be Trail's calll

This happened last week in a D1 game. It was Kentucky versus ???? I have no idea who was playing becuase I spend my time watching the officials. The ball went out of bounds on the base line and the lead made a very strong call to show who's ball it was. Immediately C came across to him and they had a 10 second discussion and L changed his call. No complaints at all from the coaches or players. I have to assume that these folks pre-game this stuff so that they WILL NOT come to you on a OOB situation unless, as MTD said earlier, they are 200% sure. If they are not, they don't come. Does that mean that if partner comes to you it is an automatic call change? No, but it if you pre-game it right it should give you a very strong indication that you were incorrect. What's my point? Watch games at all levels and watch the officials because you learn so much from them. Also, a good pre-game, which I know is not always possible at all levels, helps a lot when these situations arise.

Johnny:

Pre-gaming is the most important thing. I taught my student officials, that: (1) The C should be 200% sure that the L couldn't see what he saw. (2) And that if he is 200% sure then the conversation should go one of the following three ways:

Conversation 1:

L: Red ball.

C: I saw White touch the ball after Red touched it.

L: Okay. I will change my call. White ball.


Conversation 2:

L: Red ball.

C: I saw White touch the ball after Red touched it.

L: I know, and then White touched the ball again. Red ball.


Conversation 3:

L: Red ball.

C: I saw White touch the ball after Red touched it.

L: I am positive that White never touched the ball. We are staying with Red ball. Red ball.


But in all three conversations, it is the L that still makes the final decision.

MTD, Sr.

Thanks Mark. That's a great way to explain it and handle it and will make it about a 5 second conversation. I'll remember that.

Its a good thing you didn't call a foul in your partner's PCA!!!!

And (3) that if he is 200% sure, he needs to take a math class.

Amen!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

I want to make sure of what I have read so far


So, don't tell me if the ball goes OOB on lead sideline above FTL extended the trail will run across the court to admin the throw-in.

Consider yourself not told, but that is the mechanic.

You know Bob you are right!!:rolleyes: I'm thinking if this was under two man mechanics; three man correct trail has throw-in if above FTL extended. Two man they will switch lead will come up and admin the throw-in.

Did the ball go out of bounds on the baseline or table-side sideline?

Doesn't matter. (assuming 2-man)
The lead owns the entire sideline all the way to the backcourt endline. Lead has the whistle and the call unless they ask for help from the trail (which a wise lead will often do when it is above the FT line extended)

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by truerookie
I want to make sure of what I have read so far


So, don't tell me if the ball goes OOB on lead sideline above FTL extended the trail will run across the court to admin the throw-in.




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
No it's not....at least not the NFHS official mechanic...

(The above can't be about 3-man since the lead wouldn't need to run across the court to cover anything)

From the NFHS officials manual with Diagram 24 (2005-07 book).
"Lead official administers the throw-in for which he/she is responsible. If the designated spot for the throw-in is above the free-throw line extended, the Lead official administering the throw-in will now become the new trail. The original Trail becomes the new lead.... This is the only non-foul situation in which officials will force a dead-ball switch."

NFHS or IAABO
 

Unless your using IAABO mechanics. There is only one boundary line responsibility diagram in the manual. The lead has the nearest endline, and sideline below free throwline extended. The trail has the division line, all the backcourt, nearest endline, and farther sideline above free throw line extended. This diagram is listed as an option, but there is no other option offered, or described, in the manual.

My local IAABO board switched from NFHS mechanics to IAABO mechanics a few years ago. Our IAABO handbook no longer contains NFHS mechanics. It contains an IAABO directory, a NFHS rule book, a NFHS case book, and an IAABO mechanics manual.

I hate the IAABO mechanics. In many cases the manual suggests options that must be pregamed before every game to be sure that you and your partner are on the same page. There's even an option for a rotation when the trail moves across the basket line, the lead rotates to the other side. There's also an option to the old official-ball-official boxing in principle. It's like IAABO is using three man mechanics in a two man game. What was wrong with the old NFHS mechanics? They worked well for me for over twenty-plus years.

I think it was UK vs. Florida (could have been Tennesse though). Rebounder A4 pulled ball down right under the basket when an opponent B3 got an arm through from behind (between the rebounder's arm and body). B3 poked the ball out of A4's hands..and directly OOB. From the live action, I couldn't tell how the rebounder lost the ball. It sort of squirted out of his hands but you couldn't see anyone elses hands involved. The lead made a strong call (from the same side of the floor as the camera) and gave it to B. The C came in from the other side (where the poke could be seen) and gave info the the L....who reversed the call. Replays confirmed the final call.

Billy:

I think you are confusing throw-in responsibility with out-of-bound violation coverage responsibility. The IAABO mechanics on pages 44 and 45 of the IAABO H.S. Handbook refer to throw-in resposibilities not out-of-bound violation converage repsonsibility. The mechanic on page 44 is an old NCAA Women's 2-man mechanic that I find to be a good mechanic but the mechanic on page 45 is the correct NFHS mechanic and is also an accepted IAABO mechanic.

I feel your pain when the bal does go out-of-bounds above the free throw line extended as on page 44 of the IAABO H.S. Handbook is a good example of situations that need to be pre-gamed. Out-of-bounds violations on that sideline are the responsibility of the L, but when the ball goes over in the area which you are concerned, the T has to have a patient whistle in case the L doesn't make a call, and needs to be ready to help the L if he does put air in his whistle. In those situations I, as the L, will know 99% of the time that the ball went out-of-bounds and that is all because of coverage in the paint, and I will put air in the whistle and then give the call up to the T because he will most likely have the best look at the play.

MTD, Sr.

Check Out page 46 ??
 

Mark T DeNucci, Sr.: I was actually referring to page 46 of the IAABO Manual, "OPTION: Line Coverage Above Free Throw Line Extended". I don't like this mechanic. In transition, i.e. fast break, press break; the lead should have the entire line, as he, or she, did with the old NFHS mechanics. As the lead, in a half court situation, using the old NFHS mechanics, I seldom had problems covering the entire line into the backcourt, and when I did, I would go to my partner for help. Worse case scenerio, alternating possession arrow. There are even worse scenerios with the page 46 mechanics, like difficult transition coverage. Also, if the ball goes out of bounds at the free throw line extended, we could have no whistle, or even worse, two whistles. With two whistles on fouls, or violations, in the "paint", we veterans have no problems delaying our preliminary signal until we make eye contact with our partner, thus avoiding the infamouis "blarge". But we veterans are also used to giving immediate signals on out of bounds calls, so in a worse case scenerio, using the mechanics on page 46, we could have one official calling "white" and the other official "blue". What really kills me, is that even tough it says "Option", there isn't any other boundary line coverage mentioned anywhere in the manual, either in diagram form, or a written description, which means that if a new official is told to use the manual, that's all he, or she, will learn.

Page 44 is fairly reasonable. Page 45, on the other hand, is poorly drawn and/or worded. Note that the caption doesn't mention the ball going out of bounds, while the diagram clearly shows a throwin situation. If you read the caption, it describes a rotation, similar the a three man rotation, but based on the movement of the trail, not the lead.

Check out page 49. The old official-ball-official boxing in principle was so, so easy to administer, and teach to new officials.

Why change. IAABO uses NFHS rules. Why can't we use NFHS mechanics?