Thanks for the reply, Eli. In general, I'm opposed to this type of action in a high school game. Unfortunately, high school coaches are not going to be as forgiving in this situation as pro or college coaches might be. In such a situation, the "rookie" on the crew is going to look bad. And when I say look bad, I mean that official's reputation is going to be damaged with the coaches involved. Whether he makes the call or gives help, he's screwed. I don't think this is any different than a spot throw-in violation that the administering official blows. You just have to live or die with it. It's not the end of the world. Just MHO.

Looking forward to seeing you on the 8th.

this is what joe forte wrote on a different site. the only thing incorrect is the jumpball situation. in the original post the offensive player regains control of the ball before the whistle is blown. i beleive that he concurs with what eroe39, barnaky, and myself previously stated. it is good insight from a great official.

Thanks for the post crew. I believe he has "slightly" a bit more credibility than you, eroe39, and myself and maybe some of the "posters" on this site will believe him. Thanks for the insight. Great explanation from a great referee. I totally agree with what he posted. Good stuff.

"In such a situation, the "rookie" on the crew is going to look bad. And when I say look bad, I mean that official's reputation is going to be damaged with the coaches involved. Whether he makes the call or gives help, he's screwed."

This is why so many officials are taught to "referee safe."
I've heard too many stories of officials being outcasts simply because they tried to help their crew "do the right thing." Unfortunately there are egos out there that won't allow decisions to be questioned.
My first year of JUCO ball my supervisor told me to go out
and "not do anything to get yourself noticed" basically
referee safe.
I had a situation in a game where my partner called a T on a player for hanging on the rim. From my position in trail, I notice that two players are underneath him. So I go to him
and offer information. He stuck with his call. I later had a taunting technical on this same player (after looking at tape, it was not a good call) which now resulted in his ejection. My point is, if my partner had accepted my input on the hanging on the rim, (which on tape was not justified as clearly players were underneath him)
the ejection wouldn't have happened. (For another post we can discuss game awareness which I was lacking when I called the second T on this player. I had forgotten that he already had one and would not have called it if I had realized this.)My personal feeling is if my parnter is sticking his neck out to come to me with added information,
99.5 percent of the time, I will go with his information.
That's why I enjoy working with the Pro officials I've had the priveledge to work with. They are concerned with getting the play right, rather than feeding their ego's.
Drake

Thanks for the confirmation Drake. I wrote the exact same thing in a reply previous to yours. Your remarks are right on! ;)

[Edited by BktBallRef on Mar 6th, 2002 at 04:59 PM]

That may be the reason for the quotation marks. You want a by-line too? ;)

drake.
you make an absolute good point. telling a rookie to go out and referee safe is very good advice as it has been given to me as well. unfortunatley in college leagues veteran officials have tender egos which prevent the game from being officiated at the best level. most officials would rather be wrong and have noone bring it up, than to have a younger official try to get the play right. also coaches in college leagues have to much power as well. if an official does try to get the play right the coach who is now not benefitting from the incorrect play will probly scratch the younger official who is doing the right thing. it is a situation that will determine determine ethics, whether it be the official, supervisor, or coach.

These are all valid points. There are scratch lists at both the high school and college levels.
The ideas that myself and others have presented here are just merely ideas that we have learned from others.
Best advice to new officials is to learn how to referee and just work the primary that your suppose to be in.
One thing I have learned at the college level, is that there are many other factors out there (besides just getting plays right) that will determine your success (or failure) in this business. It is unfortunate but very true. Something I have a hard time dealing with. But such is life.

Why? Either he deserved the T for this particular action or he didn't. By thinking you wouldn't call it if you think he already had one he "didn't deserve" you are engaging in "make-up calls."

Did you also not call any travels because you thought your partner called one incorrectly earlier?

Of course I know the difference in severity between calling a travel and a technical that results in ejection, but the basic principle remains the same. Do not make "make-up calls" and let each call stand on its own merit.

The player's actions, not yours, must be the determining factor in how the outcome of the game is decided.

Mark,
It was a "borderline" taunting call that could have been
handled with a "kind word" or two said to the player.
He really did not deserve to be thrown out of the game for
it. If this would have been his first T, ok. But not
worthy of a second T.

I'm confused.

NCAA rules:
Hanging on the rim == indirect T.

Taunting == direct T.

Why the ejection?

Interesting point BobJenkins. I totally did not read that post closely. If that is the case, hanging on the rim, under the NCAA, would be indirect. A player needs two directs for an ejection, one flagrant, three indirects, or a combination of indirects/directs.

Good pick up on this point.

You do bring up a good point. One which I don't have
a good answer for.:(
At the time none of us considered it. Although I think later
in talking to our Supervisor that was brought up.
Mea Culpa.;)

Drake,
During your first year of JUCO it probably was a technical. ;)
mick

Mark,
It was a "borderline" taunting call that could have been
handled with a "kind word" or two said to the player.

Then why didn't you do that? If it was worthy of a T, call it. If not, then don't. You can't be "half pregnant". Calling it a "borderline" taunt implies to me that you really weren't sure if you should call it or not - but the fact remains that it must have been bad enough that you did.

He really did not deserve to be thrown out of the game for it. If this would have been his first T, ok. But not
worthy of a second T.

A T is a T if deserved. The fact he already had one is irrelevant. You're right when you say he didn't deserve to be thrown out of the game for this, but he does deserve to be thrown out of the game for getting two, which he did. That's why technical fouls that are not flagrant are cumulative. After all, it's his behavior and actions that are what determine what happens to him.

Notice I'm not addressing the issue of indirect vs. direct under NCAA rules because that's not the point of your post.