Rate my partner

[Mark Padgett]

When I do an eval, I look to five main areas: 1) court presence, 2) mechanics, 3) judgment on fouls and violations, 4) rules knowledge and application, 5) resistence to overtimes (OK - just kidding on that one). Yesterday, I had a partner who was excellent on the first three. You tell me how she did on the fourth. Here were some of the calls she made in the one game I did with her. BTW - this was a varsity girls spring league tournament, and I was just working with her - no formal eval, just my perception. I never worked with her before and I was told she was a five year vet. All of these calls happened in her area.

A1 inbounds to A2. A2 is in frontcourt, jumps, catches ball in midair and lands in backcourt. Partner calls over and back violation.

A1 dribbling in frontcourt. B1 bats ball. Ball hits A1 in the head and goes into backcourt. Ball is retrieved by A1. Partner gives "tip" signal. No call.

A1 dribbling. A1 dribbles ball off knee. Ball bounces away. A1 catches up with ball and continues dribble without holding ball. Partner calls travel.

A1 grabs rebound in air. As A1 comes down, she falls to ground still holding ball in both hands. No call.

A1 to inbound on endline after basket by team B. A2 jumps OOB on endline. A1 passes ball to A2. As soon as A2 touches ball, partner calls inbound violation (not 5 seconds).

A1 to inbound. B1 reaches over the boundary. It was the first warning. She wants to give B1 a technical because "her intent was to hit the ball."

Here's the kicker. Team A scores. B1 picks up the ball and steps OOB. A1 requests a timeout. Partner Ts A1 for "requesting a timeout when one cannot be granted." I have to admit, I never heard that one before. BTW - team A had two timeouts remaining and she knew that, because we just had checked the table during a break for team fouls and timeouts, so it couldn't have been for requesting an excessive timeout.

Also - she called an intentional foul on B1 for fouling A1 in the act of shooting (good call) - the ball went in and she wanted to award A1 only one free throw because the ball went in. I cut her some slack on this one, because there are quite a few refs I have worked with who get this one wrong.

And yes - I discussed each call with her.

[BktBallRef]

Yeah, but none of that matters since she had good court presence, right?

[Oz Referee]

Hey if she is a FEEBLE referee she got the first call right!

(Shame about the others...)

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Yeah, but none of that matters since she had good court presence, right?

I think she got a 95% on her test. She can officiate anywhere with those test scores.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Mark P., let me first say that I feel your pain because I have had the same experiences too.

Second, I hope that she is not in Howard Mayo's association because I think that he would be appalled.

Other than what I have just said I do not what to tell you. The real problem is that there are too many officials who are just like her and too many of them have far more years of experience that she does.

I have found that when officials start wanting their brethern to become experts on the rules and mechanics and to really take an interest in their job on the court, the first their brethern tells them that officiaing is a avocation and not a profession. But we all know that officiating is a profession masquerading as an avocation.

As you know, coaches rule the roost in Ohio, and decide who officiates and who does not. On two different occasions this year (one time in the presence of two other varsity officials, one of whom and taken my officiating class), that there were black balling me because I enforce the rules the way that the NFHS Rules Committee wants the rules to be enforced and not the way the coaches in NW Ohio want the rules enforced. I was told that my insistence on: 1) calling charges on offensive players when the defender is moving; 2) not calling "palming" when the dribbler dribles the ball high; and 3) calling disconcerting action when the coach yells to his players along the free throw line while his opponent is shooting free throws, were among the reasons for my black balling.

When I wrote the coaches up on game reports for unethical conduct the state took the position that the coaches could have any official they wanted to officate. Now you know why we have officials like your partner this past weekend.

Keep the faith.

[Marty Rogers]

Mark P:
You are a saint for having to endure that
experience. I'm not convinced that
numbers 1-3 could have been so great,
either. I'm sorry, but this is a hopeless
case after 5 years experience, unless a
rehab camp is attended!

Doesn't this ref get screamed at by
coaches all the time? And, have partners
dreading to work with her? I would be
beside myself.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I think she got a 95% on her test. She can officiate anywhere with those test scores.

Officials who get 95 on their exam don't miss those types of calls because they know the rules.

Only officials who don't know the rules and are only worried about how they look miss thos types of calls.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Marty Rogers
Doesn't this ref get screamed at by coaches all the time?

Marty, many coaches think those calls are correct.

[Cornellref]

Mark, if you don't mind, could you explain the proper procedures for these play? It seems I still have a lot to learn. Thanks alot

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Officials who get 95 on their exam don't miss those types of calls because they know the rules.

Only officials who don't know the rules and are only worried about how they look miss thos types of calls.

Again, just because you have book knowledge does not mean that you will know what to call when you see it on the court. Reading a situation is much, much different than seeing the play or plays on the court.

Just because you can quote a rule does not mean you will apply it the proper way when you have coaches, players, fans and other officials in the stands picking at everything you do. There is a thing called pressure and knowing how to stay cool under those circumstances.

But then again Tony you are right. Officials that know the rules do not make those mistakes. But if officiating was only about rules, then officiating would be a lot better. I had a baseball game this evening and the argument that I had at home plate had nothing to do with knowing the rules. It did have to do with my judgement that was being questioned by the coach. It was a much bigger factor how I handled the situation. I could have gotten mad and struck back at the coach and called him names but then again I would never officiate that conference again, and I definitely probably could have kissed my career in all my sports goodby too.

Tony I bet the only one that really recognized this was Mark. I bet not a single coach said a word and if they did was it any different than when you actually get the rules right. I have see coaches all the time complain, and they do not even know the actual rule. They still thought I was horrible and I nailed the rule. But then again I can say this until I am blue in the face and you will still disagree. I guess life will move on.


Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Tony I bet the only one that really recognized this was Mark. I bet not a single coach said a word

You're correct. This enforces the concept that rec league coaches have no clue as to rules. I'm sure that had this been a sanctioned HS game during the regular season, there would have been a bunch of questions from coaches.

Of course, in that situation, there would be more pressure on her partner to stop after each incorrect interpretation and make a correction on the spot.

BTW - this morning I happened to run into a rec league coach and he spent ten minutes telling me how lousy a ref was that he had in a game this past weekend. I just nodded my head, waited until he finished and then took my meds.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
But we all know that officiating is a profession masquerading as an avocation.

As far as I know, Mark, you're the only one who "knows" this. We've had this conversation before.

Chuck

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Again, just because you have book knowledge does not mean that you will know what to call when you see it on the court. Reading a situation is much, much different than seeing the play or plays on the court.

Just because you can quote a rule does not mean you will apply it the proper way

Rut,

I completely agree with your statements above. Knowing the rules is no guarantee that an official will make the correct call on the floor. But not knowing the rules makes it almost impossible for an official to make the correct call on the floor.

Not trying to pick a fight. Just throwing in my $.02

Chuck

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

As far as I know, Mark, you're the only one who "knows" this. We've had this conversation before.

Chuck

An avocation is something that one does not for the money but because the person likes doing it (all right you guys and gals, get your minds out of the gutter).

A profession is a vocation or occupation that requires advanced education and training. And I would like to add that one does it too a high standard.

I did not say that we do not realize sports officiating is an avocation, but far too many officials forget the professional aspect of sports officiating. If a person is going to step out onto a basketball court or any other sports venue to officiate a sport and accept money for it, then that person should be giving 100% and everything that entails.

I have seen officials who officiate my oldest son's 12U games that are so lazy that they never come within five feet of the crossing the division line when going from L to T. They are there just to collect the $15 per game. Not to mention that their shoes look like they had been through the trench warfare of World War 1 and their uniforms looked like they had been wearing them while sleeping those same trenches.

I do not expect every basketball official to put the time in that I do to the avocation/profession that I do. There are enough of us that do. But there are certain things that all officials should be doing and too many of them are not.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
A profession is a vocation or occupation that requires advanced education and training.

No offense, Mark, but that's simply not what a profession is. Skydiving is an avocation that requires advanced education and training. However, skydiving is not a profession, in itself. There are plenty of people who do it on weekends just for the fun of it. In fact, I think most people who do it fall (no pun intended!!) into this category. Additionally, trash collecting -- while an important and worthwhile profession -- does not require any advanced education or training. So a profession cannot be an avocation or profession which requires advanced training or education.

Officiating is not a profession for 95% of the people who participate in it. Period.

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on May 14th, 2002 at 08:54 AM]