funny start...partner not happy

[daveg144]

Sunday morning at 8:00-girls AAU U-16 game. First game in the "elimination" round of tournament. My partner throws the jump ball, black controls the ball in their frontcourt and takes two dribbles and goes the wrong way (into the backcourt). I pause a second (to make sure I've got my directions straight) and then blow the whistle for a backcourt violation. My partner rushes up to me and says it's not a violation because she never had control of the ball. I told him she took two dribbles (she was clearly in control, she just got confused) and was in control of the ball.

He said, "If you want to change my judgement call, go ahead!" and walked away. I said, "I'm just telling you what I saw and why I called the violation."

I gave the ball to white, set the arrow to white and off we went.

No other incidents in the game, but I was a bit surprised at my partner's reaction.

[Mark Padgett]

Did you ever ask him why he thought she was not in control? That would have been my response when he said she wasn't in control. It sounds like your call was based on a rule interpretation of what constitutes player, and therefore team, control - not a judgment call.

[Nevadaref]

Unfortunately, your partner was doing to you exactly what he was accusing you of doing to him! He was attempting to override YOUR judgment on YOUR call.

It is too bad that this person doesn't understand that this was truly your decision to make and not his. He should have shut up, supported you, and asked you later what you saw if he disagreed.

BTW from the officials manual:
2.2.1 C2 states that the Umpire is primarily responsible for the action of the eight nonjumpers during the jump ball.

2.4.1 A2 tells us that while officials should call violations in his/her PCA "any violation observed should be called."

[Back In The Saddle]

I suppose you could argue that at the point where the dribbler entered the backcourt, the jump ball has clearly ended, and the tosser (not necessarily the R any more) had assumed his role as trail. Backcourt is primarily his call. So technically he's got a legitimate beef here.

However, in those first few chaotic seconds after the jump, when everybody is in process of setting up the first play, there is little to be gained by getting territorial. Call what you see.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

In those first few chaotic seconds after the jump, when everybody is in process of setting up the first play, there is little to be gained by getting territorial. Call what you see.

They do it in football. They do it in soccer. They probably do it in other sports, as well. Years ago we did away with over 90% of the jump balls in a game. Flip a coin. Please.

Honestly, especially us veterans, do we really know the jump ball rules, Rule 6-3, for both jumpers, and nonjumpers, as well as we did twenty years ago. I know that I don't. I used to know these rules like the back of my hand, when we jumped eight, or nine, times a game. As a coach, I had jump ball plays, based on which circle the jump was, and our probability of winning, or losing the jump. Now, as the umpire, I just hope that eight non jumpers don't do anything odd, that will cause me to think about the situation, and maybe blow the whistle, probably after the game has progressed six, or seven, seconds, because that's how long it's going to take me to process the situation in my old, shrinking brain.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I suppose you could argue that at the point where the dribbler entered the backcourt, the jump ball has clearly ended, and the tosser (not necessarily the R any more) had assumed his role as trail. Backcourt is primarily his call. So technically he's got a legitimate beef here.

However, in those first few chaotic seconds after the jump, when everybody is in process of setting up the first play, there is little to be gained by getting territorial. Call what you see.

Yes, the jumpball technically ends when the nonjumper touches the ball, but that play clearly isn't over. We all know that it is better for the official who has seen the whole play to make the call in any situation. No one advocates that catching the tail end of something leads to consistently good decisions.

I do agree with your overall conclusion. That being that until the action settles and the direction of play is clearly determined, for mechanics purposes the officials are still in a jumpball situation and during this chaotic period both officials have to help each other and call what they see. I would still give more priority to the Umpire for the actions of the eight nonjumpers in this case.

Perhaps when a jumpball ends in the language of the mechanics manual has to be considered to be different than when it ends according to the rulesbook. Afterall, the game is officiated by humans and they need time to shift from one thing to another during continuous game play. It is unreasonable to expect people to transition robotically.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by daveg144

Sunday morning at 8:00-girls AAU U-16 game...

Here is your problem.

Like you said there were no other incidents. I wouldn't put too much stock in his reaction.