Call Consistency as a Crew
 

I just completed my first year of high school basketball. This summer I attended two officiating camps (IAABO in Greely, CO and Dave Hall's camp at Colorado State University). I had a conversation with one of our board members and was told that I would be considered for a varsity schedule based on my performance during summer league tournaments and officiating camps.

I was selected to work games at a varsity girls tournament and each day I was paired with veteran varsity officials in our association. One things that I noticed is that on drives to the basket and blocked shots in the free throw lane the veteran officials always called a foul on the defender. It did not matter if the defender had obtained LGP any body contact was always determined to be the fault of the defender. When I had the drive to the basket in my PCA if the defender established/maintained LGP and there was contact I either made no call or if the contact displaced the defender I called a player control foul. This inconsistency as a crew made my first two days officiating this tournament frustrating and confusing. I even had a coach complain about why the calls were not consistent on each end. I tried to pregame this with partners but it did not seem to work.

At camp I received a great deal of praise for refereeing the defense and my call selection/judgement relating to fouls. I come back and I work with officials that call the game in a different way than I was taught. Any feedback on how to work through is would be helpful.

:confused:

Wow. You have got to be kidding. You list something you think is wrong with no specific information as to why you have come to that determination. Rather you came in telling us how good things are for you. By the way, I know Dave Hall, I am very familiar with Denver area and Colorado officiating, I doubt that you will jump from first year to varsity schedule referee (HS level, not wreck league). There would have to be a mass exodus by the officials.

So I will make the determination you are just trying to stir the pot. Enjoy.

cewingate:

I agree with ICallFouls post see #2 above). Also, as you gain more experience, you will find that the vast majority of block/charge calls are charge. You are correct, referee the defense, and you will see how right I am.

MTD, Sr.

Hold on now, I see the OPs legitimate question... How to deal with inconsistent block/charge calls by him (young official) vs. veterans.

Although I dont agree with the OPs questioning of the vets judgement on a public forum.

I wouldn't change my CC to match their "alleged" ICC for the sake of consistency.

Instead you should ask them "what they saw" on the play in question. Then you let them know what you think you saw, so they can ask "why are looking in my area" :D but that's another story.

I believe officials who camp vs. those who don't will have many inconsistencies throughout the course of a game just because they have a different point of reference.

When you're the new guy it can be tough working with vets, you don't want to step on their toes over fouls/violations because you want to be accepted by them. After all they have the credibility that you desire!

The best way to work out inconsistencies is to communicate as a crew, IMO.

Food for thought:
We shouldn't go to camp to be told how good we are. We should be going to be told what we can do to become better. After all, any idiot can blow a whistle & call fouls/violations. What did Mr. Hall say about the things that make officials great compared to good? ie. your positioning (running to close down at lead, stepping down at the slot, adjustments, the 3 immediates) rules knowledge, mechanics, etc? If all you got was praise then you wasted your time & money...

Don't be the guy who goes to camp & comes back next season a know-it-all. It is ultimately YOUR responsibility to educate those who didn't attend camp NOT frown upon them. Maybe I'm wrong but I sense a little "my sh1t don't stink, what's wrong with these old guys" attitude from your comments. That will end a career before it takes off.
Be humble!
Find a mentor!
Be a mentor!

Most of all good luck this season!!

I have no idea what point you are trying to make or what you are asking. You are using one anecdotal example as a reference for everything that is about consistency.

All I can tell you is keep working and maybe one of these days you will realize what is being called. I am really not sure what consistency has to do with this thread. Consistency does not mean call the same thing on both ends, just because.

Peace

I agree with the "just because" part but in my opinion consistency as a crew means calling the same thing on both ends. If two officials in a three-official crew think incidental contact has one definition and the third thinks it is another, someone needs to adjust. Face it, at some point during the game each official is going to be in all three positions. It is unfair to your partners and the players if you are letting go contact that the other two are calling. And it will probably make for a very long game if you cannot get on the same page.

That is one of the hardest things for me to nail. It is getting easier as if finally dawn on me that a play originating in my primary (headed to a partner's primary) when my partner is calling a foul and we don't have a double whistle that is a sign we need to discuss the play as we may have different definitions of a foul.

Easy fellas - he's speaking from his heart and sharing his experience with us from camp. I don't sense any cockiness from his OP. He's simply frustrated with not being "LIKE-MINDED" with his crews and excited about the positive feedback from the clinicians. He's venting why his calls and views of the game are different than the veteran officials.

CEW: without seeing the actual play, based on your description, none of us here can help explain why the calls were made and why the game is called inconsistently. Bare with it and don't question on whether the calls that the veteran officials made were right or wrong. Sometimes we need to make "management calls." These are usually calls veteran officials make to restore the game and keep the games flowing. I say veteran officials usually make them because they're not afraid to call them.

My advise is to ask a lot of questions and listen to them. Whatever their responds or comments may be, be humble and thankful. You don't always have to agree with them, but never do the "BUT YEAH" because if you already pre-determine the outcome then what's the point in asking.

Here's one point I want to bring out: I find that younger officials (age-wise) are more incline to not call fouls and let a lot more go. Younger officials are also more tolerant to unacceptable behaviors and non-basketball plays. Perhaps it just that the game has changed over the past decades. Any thoughts on this?

Or not calling it on both ends! :p

I did not respond because of his attitude. I responded because it was unclear to me what point he was trying to make or what he was asking. It is fine with me if he is venting, but that does not mean his venting was justified or based on something real.

Also unless I miss something, it is very hard to call things on both ends when teams do not have the same talent or play the same exact style offensively and defensively. If you ask me we worry too much about "consistency" in ways that there is not an opportunity to really have consistency.

I completely disagree if you are only using age. I see a lot of officials with less experience who do not know what to call and not what to call. Age has little or nothing to do with it because they have yet to understand the game from the officiating perspective. Most of the newer officials I have seen in the last 10 years have been older in age (older than me as an example) and I see many of those officials not blow their whistle on just about every aspect of the game unless it is so obvious that even the janitor thinks the whistle should be blown. And I certainly do not see a lot of newer officials calling off-ball or calling proper loose ball activity when a veteran would make such a call.

Peace

I disagree with the above statement. I find that more often it is a block than a charge.

A philosophy I picked up from a veteran D1 official is that if both players are going into each other, as shown here: i -> <- i, then we have a block.

If it is i<-i and in result to this: \<-\, then it's a charge.

The key is to referee the defense. Pick up the secondary defender IMMEDIATELY. If I missed the secondary defender and I have to guess, I'm going to be wrong.

As a general rule, I've seen a trend as officials develop; I've seen it in myself as well.

1. New officials unsure what to call, not blowing their whistle.
2. Start seeing plays better, start calling everything.
3. Realize not all contact is a foul, start looking for advantage and end up letting too much go.
4. Judgment improves, and they get closer to reaching a proper balance.

The length of time through each stage varies, obviously. Also, obviously, the off-ball awareness develops independently of (but similar to) those four stages.

So, from the norm, something like this:

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handb...phics/Damp.gif

No disrespect to girls basketball but I rarely see a girl obtain LGP and take a charge. They simply don't do it. :eek:

Something you may not be aware of is that MTD mistakenly thinks that a defender can move in front of an airborne shooter after he/she has left the floor and get a player control foul. He doesn't understand how the concept of LGP works, so he's calling PC fouls on plays that are blocks. :(

Mwanr1:

The red highlighted quote of yours is not a philosophy, it is the definition of guarding and screening when they are properly applied. AND, if one applies the definition of guarding and screening correctly you will get it correct 99.999,999,999% of the time.

MTD, Sr.

Quote:
<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 Snaqwells
As a general rule, I've seen a trend as officials develop; I've seen it in myself as well.

1. New officials unsure what to call, not blowing their whistle.
2. Start seeing plays better, start calling everything.
3. Realize not all contact is a foul, start looking for advantage and end up letting too much go.
4. Judgment improves, and they get closer to reaching a proper balance.

The length of time through each stage varies, obviously. Also, obviously, the off-ball awareness develops independently of (but similar to) those four stages.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I completely agree with the four stages of development outlined by Snaqs. I also thank Juggs for his wonderful graphical representation of the process. :)

How about this?
Call your game. Stay in your primary area and don't worry about what calls are made by your partners in their areas.

Quote:
<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 Mwanr1
I disagree with the above statement. I find that more often it is a block than a charge.

A philosophy I picked up from a veteran D1 official is that if both players are going into each other, as shown here: i -> <- i, then we have a block.

If it is i<-i and in result to this: \<-\, then it's a charge.

The key is to referee the defense. Pick up the secondary defender IMMEDIATELY. If I missed the secondary defender and I have to guess, I'm going to be wrong.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I'm also a big fan of this pictoral representation of block/charge situations. It isn't perfect, but it certainly will cover the vast majority of plays.

I am just going to reply to the original post although I have liked a lot that has been said and disliked little (great thread-just talking bball-i love it).

Call consistency and having great crew dynamics is great to have for your game, but you can't sacrafice and determine that an incorrect call (IC) after incorrect call is being consistent. You have to chuck the first call up as a miss and move on and continue to get your plays right.

Someone said something about staying in your primary and not worrying about what they call. I am only using this to illustrate my point that you have to have an awareness of what your partners are calling, so in the possible chance that you have had some 50/50 plays go one way, you can recall that situation on those previous 50/50 plays in your area and do the right thing for the game by balancing the game out when those play come to you. Now i'm not saying you have to balance the floor back out when you are getting plays coming to you that are a little below obvious, it needs to be a play that fans, coaches, and players alike say "that was a play that could have went either way."

Good luck to you and listen to these guys that are telling you to be humble and keep learning. You might have the tools and the talent, but if you act like the know it all after your first year, you might be discredited quickly no matter how good you are. Only you can be your hardest critic, so go out and out work yourself night in and night out. Watch tape, get advice from people you believe to be credible, and always be a sponge. If you are eager to learn it will shine through and people will notice and be willing to help you in your ascension up the officiating ladder.

I don't buy all this. It is up to us to look at the play that the fans, coaches, and players see as 50/50 and make the correct call as best we can. It was probably 50.05/49.95. If your mind is clouded by the last close call, it can easily serve to tip the delicate balance to the wrong side.

I affirm this statement. You have to treat each play individually. The calls will sort themselves out.

I agree with this part of your statement. As part of a crew, I need to be aware of what my partners are calling, so that I try to call plays with the same philosophy as them. If my partners are calling hand checks on the dribbler, I better be calling them as well, and not passing on them just to "let them play". If my partners have decided these are big boys and they can play through some contact, I better not be the one calling every bump.

There can be an overall crew philosophy that develops, and I had better be a part of that. If I feel we aren't on the same page, we better get together at a TO and discuss it. Sometimes my partners have had to tell me to get my head out of my a$$ and get with it. Sometimes I've had to reel in a partner. But don't ever get caught in the trap where you think, "I don't know what the hell they're calling; I'm just gonna call my game no matter what". Then the crew will definitely be inconsistent.

Your post deals with working to develop a consistent officiating philosophy as a crew. I agree with this and think anyone would. The above post dealt with make up calls.

No, I don't think it did. I think it had to do with being aware of what your partner called, so you can make the same call on a similar play.

Let's take a block/charge - some plays call themselves. However, there are a lot of these calls where they are so close (did the defender have LGP immediately before or immediately after contact?), you can effectively call them 50/50 plays. How many videos of these types of plays have been posted here, and even after watching replay after replay, in super slo-mo, we disagree? So, in these plays, if I see my partner come out with a block, I am not going call a similar play in front of me a charge just because I think too many blocks are being called. A similar play should have a similar call from all of us. That's what consistency means.

If my partner obviously blew the call, I'm not going to have a make-up call, or make another bad call to even things out. That's not what consistency means. It does mean that I'm not going to "call my own game" no matter what my partners are calling.

Whoa whoa I never nor would I ever say have make up calls! In fact I agree that for the most part, plays should be judged on their own merit. But when you have plays that are so indistinguishable and could go one way or the other I believe the crew should be consistent in their playcalling and if your crew can be consistent on those plays alone the crews credibility will skyrovket.

So....how do you pre-game that? Do you say <b>ALL</b> close plays should be a block? Or do you say <b>ALL</b> close plays should be a charge? Do you want <b>ALL</b> close plays to be a block <b>EVERY</b> game? Or do you want <b>ALL</b> close plays to be a charge <b>EVERY</b> game? Or to you recommend alternating....one game <b>ALL</b> close plays are a block and the next game <b>ALL</b> close plays are a charge?

Please let me know so my credibility will skyrocket too.

Just stay away from the game interrupters, and you should be fine, JR.

Sarcasm aside, btaylor is exactly right, IMHO. How do you pre-game it? Exactly how he said it. If you completely screw the pooch and call a PC on an obvious block, I'm not going to intentionally screw the pooch on the next one just to make up for your bad call.

But when you judge that first bang-bang too-close-to-call crash a block, then if I have bang-bang too-close-to-call crash, it's gonna be a block. If it's NOT close, and clearly a PC, then I'm going to call it a PC. But I'm going to try to remember that the really close one that could have gone either way was a block.

Fat chance. :p

Oh, I get it now. You don't pre-game it. You wait for the first close call. If that's a block, then every close call by every official for the rest of the game has to be a block also. Or if the first close call was a charge, then every close call by all officials for the rest of that game should be a charge also. Heckuva idea, Skippy. Sure makes it a heckuva lot easier too. It takes all of the judgment and thought out of the calls. Officiate by numbers.

Of course, you do have to keep a real good watch on all of your partner's calls at the start of the game to make sure that the first call that they make was a really close one.

Naw, that's way too complicated and <i>nouveau wave</i> for dumb ol' me. I'll just continue trying to make up my own mind on each call as to what I think it should be.....even though all the extra thinking required does make my head hurt.:)

JR, every call can not be made in a vacuum. If you are letting marginal contact go when B1 is shooting in the post at one end but your partner(s) is sending A1 to the free throw line on the same contact at the other then you don't have consistency and Coach B will soon be earning a Technical foul. It most definitely has to addressed in the pre-game and, if need be, at halftime.

Look, I understand what you're saying - get the call right. It's Officiating 101. Maybe this falls under Officiating 301 - it's having a wider awareness of what's happening in the game. I guess my feeling is the <B>crew</B> needs to get all the plays right, not just each official calling their own game. You know the "standard" for a foul in one game is different than the standard for another. So if I'm calling contact that would be a foul in a jr. high girl's game, but it happens to be a varsity boys game, I sure hope my partners would come over to me and tell me to get my head in the game and call it like they are. Maybe I'm working with another, unnamed official on this forum, and he's calling hand checks based on how his assignor told him, and I'm calling handchecks to the letter of the rule. We're both "right" in some respects, but we're certainly not consistent as a crew. Wouldn't you agree we need to be on the same page, therefore, consistent?

I get what you're trying to say, but where's the line that makes it "the same contact" and different enough contact to warrant a different call? Often enough what appears to be "the same contact" isn't at all the same from different angles. That's where I struggle with the consistency concept.

Nah, I think JR's saying you're "wrong."

In other words, I'm f***ed?

If you're doing the job properly, you're not making close block/charge calls...or any call.... in a vacuum. You're making the call as per what happened on that particular call <b>ONLY</b>, not on what happened on some call that might have occurred a half ago. Consistency doesn't mean that <b>ALL</b> close calls must be either a block or a charge. Doing it the way that you suggest is nothing but a cop-out imo. Any official who has become competent, proficient and experienced at a certain level is good enough to make any call based solely on the merits of that call <b>only</b>. They are also as equally competent, experienced and efficient to deal with the consequences of the calls that they make.

Imo you are giving way too little credit to the majority of officials out there who are good enough to pick out the subtle differences in what might appear to be similar calls, but are are actually quite different...maybe because a defender might have slightly leaned sideways at the very last second, or something similar to that. And only one official on the floor might be in a position to pick out that subtle difference. Does that mean that he's still not supposed to make the right call because all previous calls have been charges?

Sorry, but I don't agree with the "perception is reality" school of officiating. I believe that reality is reality.

Me too....obviously.:)

How can you be sure that you're getting a call right if you pre-determine that call?

Where did I say a call is pre-determined? :confused:

I don't follow this at all. In the first place, the expression "too close to call" doesn't work. There is no play that's too close to call. We have to make a call.
If you do have multiple plays in a game that are that close, there is no right and wrong, it depends on who you ask. Whether the last call was yours or your partner's, you must try to get this one right, and what the last call was has no part in the equation.

I missed the part where I said all calls get called one way or another. And my post was not limited to block/charges, in fact I referenced contact in the post. Many foul calls are judgement and if the crew isn't on the same page as what they deem incidental and/or marginal contact then there are going to be problems.

Actually, let me re-phrase that. There are a lot of calls that are pre-determined.
- If a defender contacts a shooter's arm, and that contact affects the shot, I'm pre-determining that's a foul, every time.
- If a defender puts a hand on a dribbler, and that contact affects the path of the dribbler, I'm pre-determining that's a foul, every time.
- If a player, while holding the ball, lifts their pivot foot before releasing the ball to start a dribble, I'm pre-determining that's a violation, every time.

However,
- If B1 establishes LGP, and A1 contacts B1 and knocks them to the ground during a drive down the lane, my partner is calling a player/team control on A1. Then on the next possession, B1 drives down the lane while A1 trys to get in the path, but doesn't succeed; B1 knocks down A1, so now I've got a blocking foul on A1. Even though they were "similar" plays, they were not the same play, so they won't get the same call.

Don't get hung up on pre-determining calls. Maybe the proper terminolgy should be making sure the crew is using the same judgement in making calls. If all the officials use the same judgement, the crew will be consistent.

ok let me ATTEMPT to polish up what I said:

I'm assuming, for the most part, in regards to this thread and the topic everyone is thinking about block/charge plays:

If you have never had a block/charge play where the offensive player has started his upward shooting motion and the defender is so close to being in place to take a charge and it was so bang bang that you barely had time to blink then god bless you! This is the type of play i'm thinking of in regards to this thread. Do they happen that often in a game? No they don't but when it does happen, you're game awareness has to be at a level where you can go back through your play recall list and remember that "nutcutter" that we had earlier in the 2nd period and be able to apply it to this play in the 4th.

I love the thought process that most people have about judging each play on its own merit, that is great and i believe in it. If some people thought that a block/charge was hard and you thought it was not a 50/50 play by any means, then by all means call it like you see it and I believe this should be the way it is way way more often than not.

JR, in regards to your play about the player slightly leaning:

I believe this does not fall under the 50/50 play principle. If you judge he leans in or over to take the hit then that's what you have, but if he is straight up and totally legal and the only question is whether he was there in time before upward shooting motion started then I believe this would fall under that principle.

?????
When the shooting motion starts is not a factor in determining who is responsible for contact; it only determines whether a defensive foul (if in fact the foul is defensive) is a shooting foul.

Snaqs,

This is incorrect. You are thinking of continuous shooting motion. Upward shooting motion is used to determine if a defender has obtained a LGP prior to the upward shooting motion of the off. Player. If he is there before USM then it is an offensive foul, if not then it is a block. I hope this doesn't divert our debate. This is the best debatable thread I've seen in a while!

Consistency ...
 

Part of my pregame conference with my partner:

Consistency
Let’s see if we can call the same game. Be consistent with each other. If I have a very close block/charge play and I call a blocking foul, then the next time you have a similar block/charge play, you should have a blocking foul. Let’s try to remember what we’ve called earlier in the game, and what we haven’t called. Be consistent with what has already happened in the game.

Last Two Minutes
We’re not calling anything in the last two minutes if we haven’t already called it earlier in the game, unless it’s so blatant that it can’t be ignored. We don’t want our first illegal screen to be called with 30 seconds left in the game; but if the illegal screen puts a player into the first row of the bleachers, then we have to call it. Let’s not put the whistles away in the last two minutes: That wouldn’t be consistent with the way we’ve been calling the game. If the game dictates it, let the players win or lose the game at the line. We don’t want to be the ones who decide the game by ignoring obvious fouls just to get the game over.

Sorry, but Snaqs is correct. Upward, sideways, downwards or any other direction of motion is not relevant to judging whether or not a defender was in position in time. What you needed to write was "before the offensive player goes airborne." Whether he has begun his shooting motion or not has no impact upon whether the foul is offensive or defensive.
Snaqs rightly chastised you for your incorrect phrasing.

Well I can't speak for the college game although I thought it was all the same but in the pro game it is when the off. Player starts his upward shooting motion. Can you give me the rule citation where it says that the off player has to be airborne?

I know I used to think the same thing and then read deeper in my rule book and it was different.

The NFHS citation is rule 4-23-5(d) and the NCAA citation is rule 4-35-5(d). They both basically use the same language. The NCAA language is <i>"When an opponent is airborne, the guard shall have obtained legal guarding position before the opponent left the playing court."</i>

That's an absolutely basic rule that's been unchanged in both rulesets as long as I've been around. It's a big mistake to confuse NBE rules and philosophies with the NCAA and NFHS ones. They are completely different.

What the pros do is irrelevant because they don't follow their own rules half the time anyway.:)

Sorry, Ben, but I personally do not believe in any 50/50 play principle. That's just a cop-out imo. It's either a block or a charge and any good, experienced official can and will make that call based on it's merits only without worrying about whether the play was close enough to be labeled a....horrors.... 50/50 play.

Sometimes you can analyze yourself into a coma instead of just officiating the damn game to the best of your personal abilities. I honestly believe that is currently the NBA's biggest problem when it comes to officiating. They've forgotten that their officials are actually smart enough and good enough to do a game without having to be second-guessed and and analyzed to death. What separates the good official from the great official is usually judgment, and if you try to remove that judgment factor, then all you will do is reduce both of them to being mediocre. And things like 50/50 principles are a good example of that.

As usual, jmo.

JR,

Not trying to be sarcastic in any way but you are telling me that you have never had a block charge play that was so hard to distinguish that it could have went either way... Easily. If you haven't then you are the most fortunate man in the history of basketball.

At the level I work these men are unbelievable athletes and make it hard as hell to ref sometime. And in just this year I have seen so many bang bang block charge plays! I believe 9.5/10 you should be able to distinguish but there are those rare times when they are just hard *** plays. I understand what you are saying about it being a cop-out though. I also wish I could get you to sit in on some of our pre season meetings and summer training programs. I really think you would change your mind about how we work and are taught to work.

I am not trying to be sarcastic but, just what level do you officiate? Actually, if one knows the rule and knows how to appky it, one should not have any problems in making the call no matter how close it is. Besides, if the block/charge is that close, go with the charge.

MTD, Sr.

Of course I've had bang-bang calls that were close as hell. I just try to make what I think is the right call for that particular play without worrying about anything else. I don't worry about what coaches/players think and I sureashell don't worry or even think about who got the last bang-bang call.

Do you know what the real difference in these type of calls is imo? None of 'em are <b>exactly</b> the same. There's some slight, subtle difference in all block/charge plays. That's why I think that you have to officiate the play, not history. The tape doesn't lie afterward either. You might have missed something because you couldn't get into optimal position because of, say, a quick break the other way. If there's a reason that you missed the call, you try to learn from it. No matter what though, you ain't gonna be right on all of 'em. And calling a game by saying that ALL close block/charge plays should be one or the other isn't gonna make you right ALL of the time either.

Btw, if you think that I'd change my mind if I sat in on some NBA training sessions, well, all I gotta say to that is the NBA has already admitted that they have very serious problems with their current training methods and they're going to have to work hard to correct them. From observation, I agree with that analysis. NBA officials are almost unanimously being dumped on these days by almost everybody it seems. Well, I don't think that it's the official's fault. I think that it's the fault of the people giving direction to those officials.

Are you kidding me? There are SOME boys who "simply don't do it", and SOME girls who are very capable. You probably think girls can't block shots either. Just another perfect example of "the good ole boys club" in high school basketball officiating.

Then I'll explain. And I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog-faced buffoon.

(That's a joke. From the movie The Princess Bride. I'm just kidding. I don't really think you're warthog-faced. That was a joke, too. :) )

Of course you have to make a call. But as someone else mentioned, how many times have we seen plays on video, watched them a dozen times -- in slow motion, and still we can't come to a consensus on them? There are these plays that you literally can't tell with any certainty whether they are block or charge. And there are many more of them that happen in real time. Once we see video, you can usually tell. But in real time, sometimes it's nearly impossible to be certain of the call. These are the calls we're talking about. There aren't 100 per game, but there might be 3 or 4 if you're officiating very fast, aggressive players.

Of course there's right or wrong. It's either a block or a charge. The problem is we can't be certain of which it is. What we can be certain of, is making sure that we call those plays the same way as a crew.

Sigh. Of course you want to get it right. We all want to nail that call. And if it's clearly one or the other, that's what you're going to call. But if it's so close that you just can't be sure, the last call is a great reference.

Aren't these two statements kind of at odds? You're saying you should have no problem. And you're also saying that there are plays that are a problem, so go charge. That seems a little contradictory.

And by the way, why hasn't this response generated debate from Jurassic? Jurassic, you're all bent out of shape about trying to call these plays like your partner. Just referee the damn play, right? Well, how is "just call it a charge" any better than "call it the same way as your partner"?

As another who is just finishing my first full year, this thread has been great, and has reminded me about just how much advice (good and bad) that I have been given this year.

I have officiated from 3-4th grade kiddies to HS boys JV (this is not news to you veterans). I have tried to make it a point to cover the question of "how close do we want to call the game" question in pregame with my partners. By that I mean, are we calling all travels in the 3-4th grade game? At my level, I think it's still a relevant question to ask the veteran partner, even though the proper answer is that we aren't making adjustments to level of play- a foul is a foul etc...


The quality responses have come from the veteran officials whose judgment and advice I have come to respect during the year from working with them and seeing them as well. That advice was generally more specific- "We won't/can't call all travels at this level, but call the ones where allowing him/her to get away with it results in a basket or affects the play". Travelling outside the arc or where they are not in a position to score might not always be called.

The, um, less-quality responses (in my opinon) have been the ones where the partner says "let's see how it goes" or "don't change anything". Those were the games where we got into trouble because neither of us were on the same page in types of calls to make, and for whatever reason, we couldn't get together on the same page. I then went to my default position, and called the game as I saw it, without regard for what my partner has or hasn't done, other than to know that one of us is going to get guff from coaches for not being consistent. As communication was lacking, the game suffered. Those were the games where I thought I was on my own, my partner looked tired, disinterested and a little annoyed at having a first year partner.

Moving up levels, the best advice I have been given has been to just "call the game". For the less experienced amongst us, it is difficult to determine which player or age of player can absord what amount of contact (the "play through it" theory). I hated playing in games with "ticky tack" foul calls and I don't want to be the guy who calls inconsequential contact.

sorry for the rambing post... I'll stop now.

Z

I think it's a great question in this context, and I don't necessarily agree with your "proper answer."

"A foul is a foul" is really misleading. The same contact that is a foul in 7th grade may well not be a foul in 9th grade. It takes a lot less contact at lower levels to create an advantage than it does in high school.

Also, I will adjust to level of play with regard to travels and other violations when we're at the middle school level or below. I tend to apply advantage/disadvantage to violations at this level. There are some officials, however, who disagree with this, so it's good to communicate early and get on the same page.

Geeze, calm down, Skippy. Take a Midol or sumthin'. If it'll make you feel better, I'll agree that Mark's statement was just as dumb as yours.

Btw, I'm not "bent out of shape". I'm simply giving you my own point of view in my usual calm, cool and collected, laid back manner.

That's not what I heard from Mrs. Jurassic.

At least we agree that "If it's close, go charge" is a bad guideline.

Something good that I've heard Rick Hartzel say every time I've seen him speak is, "Think globally, officiate locally." What I take from that is call what I see in my area, but for consistency you have to be aware of what calls have been made in the game. I learned last season that possibly the worst thing you can do is let how your partner is calling the game affect how you call it. I worked a college game and one of my partners made a couple of calls on one team for handchecks and blocks out front. I overthought (not usually a problem for me :D ) and called a foul I wouldn't usually call to try to look consistent. The coach knew me, knew how I called the game, and got up my rear about the call. In this case, I deserved it for being a moron. The point is, there is a balance between the two modes of thought. Achieving this balance takes some time and experience.

I didn't comment because I thought that went without saying.

Now to have a l'il more fun......

Would you say "If it's close, go charge" would be a good guideline if the <b>last</b> close call was a charge?:D

Depends - which partner made that last call? ;)

Absolutely. That's what I've been saying all along. If it's too close to know for sure, try to remember how the last one went.

If it is a charge, call a charge. If it is a block, call a block. But if one were to video tape thousands upon thousands of bang bang block/charge calls, I will bet dollars to donuts that well over 95% will be charges, meaning when you absolutely have to call something, call a charge. :D

MTD, Sr.

I've had a number of people tell me that it's fun to work with me because I'm not afraid to call the PC. You're exactly right: it is what it is. Just be able to back up your decision if asked about the call.

Jugs:

That is the problem, far too many officials afraid to call the charge and worse don't know the rule and how to apply it correctly.

MTD, Sr.

uh waht?
 

I took some time off from this thread since its inception.

So let me get this straight. Some people here are saying on block/charge plays (bang-bang) that if the first one is a block, then the sceond one should also be a block?

So in the first qtr there is a big B/C call to make. I call a block and got the play right. Later in the game, who cares when, there is another bang-bang B/C call. For the sake of argument, this is a charge and we get the play right. Both plays went against the same team, but because we had an earlier bang-bang play we should call a block, even if it is wrong?! BTW, B/C plays aren't bang-bang plays, either LGP was established or it wasn't.

I liken this to a coach that just got a T, then they get a few calls in their favor. If the next play is against the same team, call it against the same team.

I rarely say this, but this time I agree with Jurassic.

I'm not sure if I'm counted on this side of the argument, but I would expand the explanation to say if in my partner's judgement, that first particular play was a block, and I get the same play in front of me later, my judgement should also consider that same play a block. Iow, the crew should have the same judgement on all plays.

Maybe you should look at his posts a little closer, you might agree with him more than just rarely.

I do agree with his simple logic in that all plays should be called on their own merit. However, simply saying "a block on one end will be a block on the other end" is also overly simplistic. Some people go into a game with differing levels of judgement. I might feel I can pass on certain contact because I didn't feel it caused an advantage, but my partner(s) might feel that same contact did cause an advantage, and therefore call the foul. I pass on the play at one end, my partner calls a foul on that same contact on the other end, and the result is an inconsistent crew. Whichever one of us is "correct", the other(s) should change their judgement to match. It can also be applied to block/charge calls, in that if we all know the rules and apply them them correctly, how could you not agree that a "block on one end is a block on the other"? If we as a crew don't all follow the same guidelines, I might call a charge on player who knocks over a defender who has LGP, but has one foot in the air, while my partner might feel having that one foot in the air does not constitute LGP. One end of the floor is a charge, the other end of the floor the same play is a block, and we have an inconsistent crew.

Does that make more sense?

In that case, I'm going to change my stance on it. I agree with Scrapper now.

Oh.

In that case, I agree with Snaqs.

Boy, I'm not sure I'd do that if I were you. It's just asking for trouble. I've met him, he's sort of loopy.

I just checked, and he hasn't really offered anything substantive for the original topic of this thread.

Shut up.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Er...wait a minute...

Shut up.

At least I'm consistent in pissing people off. :D

Yeah, but are you consistent with your partner?

Oh, but i agree with Oracle (or 0racle) and Yaworski (only the really oldtimers may remember this one....and they may have to think about it for awhile too!)

Alright, it appears that my recent post was taken out of context. :D
I don't reply to every single topic like some folks as I just don't have the time to follow every single topic of discussion.

There have been ocassions when JR and I have had differences of opinion and perhaps those times are what I am actually referring to. I am sure that he has been correct more often than not, I agreed, and moved on.

I guess I just remembered it incorrectly ;)

Ouch! That hurts.

I fixed it for you. :)

Didn't someone already tell you to shutup??

Geesh.

Some people.:p

Whether block or charge, COME OUT strong and sell it!

Why is someone buying?

Is "selling" the call going to make it more correct?

If you kicked it is the coach going to be okay with it because you came out strong and sold it?

Believability

I agree with NevadaRef. One has nothing until one has something. Then stop the game. Signal the foul. Charge the foul. And then get on with the game.

MTD, Sr.

I'm all for looking "strong," but I'm not so sure about "selling" it. There's a difference. Don't look like you're unsure of the call, but don't look like you're trying to convince everyone in the building, either.

The Best Bad Call ...
 

Our former local board interpreter, also a former assistant chair of the IAABO education committee, also a former NCAA Division I tournament official, and now an evaluator of basketball officials for a state athletic association, in other words, an official with very good credentials, always told us that , "The best bad call is a strong bad call".

Correctness.

But if no one ever believes you're correct, what good is it? You'll have a hard road ahead. You've got to be correct "most" of the time (with the goal of all the time) and be believable at the same time....particularly on the call that are close.

AMEN!!!!!

Just read what the first quote in my signature says. :)

Peace