[QUOTE=TheOracle]Camp game last Saturday. High level of ball, one team exited the state tourney in the semis last year and has a very difficult HC. The score is close, probably 4 point difference at this point, and the outcome of the game has some bearing on seeding for the bracket portion of the camp which will start right after this game.

In the last two minutes of the game, a younger looking official comes up strong with a whistle and a preliminary call of "Handcheck!". He reports it as a handcheck at the table, then indicates the ball is going the other way. He heads on down the floor to become the new lead.

Everybody else in the gym is scratching his head. Crew chief calls him back, confers with him for a minute, sends him to the table to "fix" his call. He does so briefly, then heads toward the new lead again with no other indication to the teams or those watching what the call really is.

What really happened was he had either a PC or TC call (never found out which). He botched the communication at the spot, again at the table, and a third time as he "fixed" the problem.

Okay, so it didn't ruin the game, but it certainly derailed what little remained of an otherwise good game. And, IMHO (and painful experience), had it happened earlier in the second half, it would likely have ruined the game as his cred is now shot and coaches, players, fans, and partners will be questioning everything this kid calls and no-calls the rest of the game.

So IMHO it is possible for one moment of poor mechanics to ruin a game. Think about it. If you have a high level game, that is close, and if the outcome is meaningful, and one of the officials on the game, who is not one of the respected vets who get the benefit of the doubt, does something that grabs everybody's attention and unintentionally broadcasts the message "I don't belong at this level", well you know how the story ends because we've all seen it happen. It's a little bit of a perfect storm, but not much of one.

Comment that I heard at camp that made perfect sense to me was this one.

Quote:

"It is not what you call, it is what you communicate."

Basically suggesting that you can make the right call but if you give a signal or indication you do not know what you are doing, the call is going to be lost.

BTW, this came from an individual that helps pick the officials for the NCAA Tournament or evaluates officials and sends the information to the NCAA Coordinator to help him make that decision.

Peace

I don't entirely agree. It's usually true that an official who makes consistently poor calls, but has good mechanics, will be widely regarded as a poor official and his mechanics cannot fix that. But a reasonably good official who makes an uncharacteristically poor call can often gain the benefit of the doubt by how he reports it. Taking a 4 call (based on a 1-10 scale) and turning it into a 9 or 10 call at the table may sound like just so much "camp philosophy", but I've found it to be true over a period of several years since I was first introduced to it. The opposite has also proven to be true. A really good call, followed by a poor presentation, will likely be poorly accepted.

Got it. I equate what people term "mechanics" with signals and reporting. My bad.