Whacked in the stack

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

2 man crew. Throw-in near the division line in front court. Throwing team sets up in a stack, four deep. During the throw-in a defender tries to go around the top of stack (the end away from the sideline) and, according to the coach, gets and elbow to the face while going around a screen. My question is, how do you referee a stack like this. But if there's a better way to handle this situation, I'd like to know.

Tough situation. I don't know of any mechanics that are specifically tailored for this situation, but here's my two cents worth of input:

The administering official should concentrate on the thrower (designated spot, boundary line, etc.), the defender on the thrower (boundary, delay of game, etc.), and, if possible, nobody said this was an easy job, which is why we get paid the "big bucks", the next closest two opponents (fouls, etc.). Yeah, I know that this could be anywhere from two, to four players, but, as I said, this is a tough situation.

The non administering official should be the lead, on the endline, but on the ball side of the court. He, or she, should be observing eight players, that is everyone but the thrower and the defender of the thrower, looking for fouls, etc.

Both officials should open up to get a wide angle look at the play, and yet still be close enough to see the things that they're supposed to be looking for.

Will these mechanics guarantee that the two officials will not miss the elbow, or the push, the illegal screen, etc? No. That's why we have three man mechanics.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Tough situation. I don't know of any mechanics that are specifically tailored for this situation, but here's my two cents worth of input:

The administering official should concentrate on the thrower (designated spot, boundary line, etc.), the defender on the thrower (boundary, delay of game, etc.), and, if possible, nobody said this was an easy job, which is why we get paid the "big bucks", the next closest two opponents (fouls, etc.). Yeah, I know that this could be anywhere from two, to four players, but, as I said, this is a tough situation.

The non administering official should be the lead, on the endline, but on the ball side of the court. He, or she, should be observing eight players, that is everyone but the thrower and the defender of the thrower, looking for fouls, etc.

Both officials should open up to get a wide angle look at the play, and yet still be close enough to see the things that they're supposed to be looking for.

Will these mechanics guarantee that the two officials will not miss the elbow, or the push, the illegal screen, etc? No. That's why we have three man mechanics.

Clearly, Billy and I disagree on the focus and positioning of the officials.
I believe that the biggest reasons that officials miss severe situations are positioning and area of focus. They are either standing where there are no players and nothing going on or looking at what isn't likely going to be a contact situation when there is a high probability of there being such in another match-up. Recognizing where to be and what to watch are acquired traits of skilled officials.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that the biggest reasons that officials miss severe situations are positioning and area of focus. They are either standing where there are no players and nothing going on or looking at what isn't likely going to be a contact situation when there is a high probability of there being such in another match-up. Recognizing where to be and what to watch are acquired traits of skilled officials.

That is a very astute comment. I believe that you identify the root causes of why officials miss severe contact situations. However, the acquired skill of recognizing when severe contact occurred, and being able to make the split-second decision to process the result and make a sellable, educated guess, can compensate for not having a perfect look. Something to think about. That would be the only time I would ever advocate educated "guessing", to prevent non-basketball escalation that can ruin the game.

I wish it was simple to do, but most misses, whether you see them or not, are the inability to see the play, process the information, make the decision, and pull the trigger in a very short period of time. It is impossible to do that hundreds of times a game without locking up on occasion. I never see or hear much discussion about it though.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

That is a very astute comment. I believe that you identify the root causes of why officials miss severe contact situations. However, the acquired skill of recognizing when severe contact occurred, and being able to make the split-second decision to process the result and make a sellable, educated guess, can compensate for not having a perfect look. Something to think about. That would be the only time I would ever advocate educated "guessing", to prevent non-basketball escalation that can ruin the game.

I wish it was simple to do, but most misses, whether you see them or not, are the inability to see the play, process the information, make the decision, and pull the trigger in a very short period of time. It is impossible to do that hundreds of times a game without locking up on occasion. I never see or hear much discussion about it though.

Perhaps because most good officials aren't all that interested in learning to officiate by guessing?

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Perhaps because most good officials aren't all that interested in learning to officiate by guessing?

In all seriousness, that comment was in reference to people never discussing the fact that they lock up and don't call fouls that they see. Officials miss a lot of calls, even when they have a great look. It happens. People should just admit it.

Since you want to play word parsing 101, then good officials wouldn't miss severe contact to the head. They'd understand that no matter where they position themselves, they know what is occurring on the floor and what needs to be called. In that situation, they'd be able to see all the players from the lead position, see a head snap back, hear the contact, see a kid start holding his face, and have a really good idea of what to call when they blew the whistle. Pretty basic for a good, experienced veteran official. Tough for an academic.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

In all seriousness, that comment was in reference to people never discussing the fact that they lock up and don't call fouls that they see. Officials miss a lot of calls, even when they have a great look. It happens. People should just admit it.

Since you want to play word parsing 101, then good officials wouldn't miss severe contact to the head. They'd understand that no matter where they position themselves, they know what is occurring on the floor and what needs to be called. In that situation, they'd be able to see all the players from the lead position, see a head snap back, hear the contact, see a kid start holding his face, and have a really good idea of what to call when they blew the whistle. Pretty basic for a good, experienced veteran official. Tough for an academic.

Once I stop laughing uncontrollably, I'll come back and explain to you in very small and easily comprehensible words what a complete load of crap your reply is.

PS. You gotta be good if you're going to be stupid.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Since you want to play word parsing 101, then good officials wouldn't miss severe contact to the head. They'd understand that no matter where they position themselves, they know what is occurring on the floor and what needs to be called. In that situation, they'd be able to see all the players from the lead position, see a head snap back, hear the contact, see a kid start holding his face, and have a really good idea of what to call when they blew the whistle. Pretty basic for a good, experienced veteran official. Tough for an academic.

I get it. You'd call a foul if you saw a head snap back and heard the contact, maybe saw a player holding his face too. There's no real need to actually SEE what happened though. Just guess away at it.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, Goob, but good, experienced veteran officials NEVER freaking GUESS.

Is that where you got the name "The Oracle"? From guessing the future?

Btw, I realize that you're not an official, but if you ever do talk to one, ask them what the term "incidental contact" means. Ask them to explain how contact can be severe, but if it's incidental, it isn't a foul. Maybe they'll also explain to you how they then judge something when they SEE it.

Lah me......

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

However, the acquired skill of recognizing when severe contact occurred, and being able to make the split-second decision to process the result and make a sellable, educated guess, can compensate for not having a perfect look. Something to think about. That would be the only time I would ever advocate educated "guessing", to prevent non-basketball escalation that can ruin the game.

I thought about it. It's a completely wrong.....and dumb premise.

If you have to guess, you shouldn't be making any call....no matter how good a "guesser" you think you might be. The object, believe it or not, is to get the call right. You can't ensure that by "guessing".

Unbelievable......

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I thought about it. It's a completely wrong.....and dumb premise.

If you have to guess, you shouldn't be making any call....no matter how good a "guesser" you think you might be. The object, believe it or not, is to get the call right. You can't ensure that by "guessing".

Unbelievable......

I'll restate my viewpoint. Good, veteran officials have enough feel for the game to not ever miss severe contact than should be called as a foul, regardless of positioning. Severe contact that should be called a foul is so obvious to everyone in the gym that only incompetent officials miss it.