game management vs. play calling

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rockyroad


but play-calling and rules knowledge are the same thing...

OK and your point is?

I personally did not make that claim, but have to disagree completely. Only because if I have knowledge of a rule, does not mean I will apply it correctly or call it correctly. Just because I understand the definition of "contact", does not mean I will call a foul properly or that others will call it the same as me. So I really do not understand how they are the same. But to each his own.


Peace

[Edited by JRutledge on Jun 14th, 2002 at 02:13 PM]

[zebraman]

Rut,

Maybe it would be useful if you could post "Rut's rules" here on the board to make sure we don't ever obsess or join in on a discussion that we should "stay out of." You know, things like:

1) This is a basketball officials discussion board, but there is no place for basketball rules discussion here.

2) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unless it contradicts mine.

3) I don't care what anyone thinks of me or my posts. But if you disagree with me, I will continue to debate until I get the last word.

4) Conforming with a particular assignor's beliefs is much more important than calling the best game that I have been trained to do. You should all feel that way too. My goal is to be a D1 official. Since that is my goal, it should be everyone's goal.

5) If I continue to dredge up an old point and make a new post about it every time I see an article supporting my position, that is just good discussion. If you make a post that doesn't agree with my viewpoint, you are obsessive.

6) I get blamed for everything. You are all out to get me and none of it us brought on by my abrasive posts.

7) If someone agrees with a poster who contradicted my opinion, they need to stay out of the discussion.

Add some more Rut so I can be sure to please you. :-)

Z

[LarryS]

It seems to me, from reading the replies related to the topic, that a good case could be made for both game management ability and play calling ability. If you have the desire to move into the upper levels of officiating, why would you not try to find out what the evaluators at your target level place the emphasis on and make that the area in which you concentrate your efforts? That applies in every area. You can be the best game manager ever to walk the earth, but if you want to work in XYZ Conference and their evaluator thinks game management skills are irrelevant you are SOL.

Guess it depends on why you officiate. Personally, I do it because I enjoy it. Have no desire to ever go higher than HS varsity and my officiating goal is to be the best I can possibly be given the time I can put into the craft after tending to God, my family and my profession (in that order). I can be happy officiating no higher than 8th grade if necessary. Therefore I am going to work on both areas and let the chip falls as they may. If evaluators think I am unfit for HS varisty, I couldn't care less (the assignor I worked for this last year respects my ability and has committed to keep using me).

Besides, being good at both are not mutually exclusive.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Yeah, you are right Tony, I base my life one what a bunch of officials not in any of my gerisdiction of officiating. If I am whining, then you need to base your conversation on what I say to you. I do not think your name is zebraman. But then again this is the internet.

Little Jeffrey, the last time I checked, this was a discussion forum, which allows anyone to respond to anyone. If you're whining? Since you whine all the time, it's assumed that you always have cheese and crackers on hand!

Piece

[JRutledge]

Where do you live?

Are in my associations that I belong?--And if you are, does not mean I will work with you. I belong to 3 basketball associations and with the expection of the one that is directly in the city, I do not see or work with guys in any of my conferences I work.

Just look at the first page of topics on this board, tell me how many are rules discussions? Then go over to the other sports and tell me how many they are regularly having? You can discuss anything you like, but for something that seems to be so important, why do we here almost never have regular discussions about it? I guess officials all over the place are not having problems with rules ever. I just find it interesting something that is so important, and we do not even discuss them. But how many times have we had this discussion, and how many times have we discussed things like camps and shoes and officials-coach confrontations? But rules is the most important of all of that? And when we do have a rules discussion, it is some fan or coach that thinks it is travelling if the ball does not hit the rim on a shot and the shooter recovers the ball themselves.

I can't remember or care about anything you had said in the past day, let alone over a long period of time. Partly because in my world I do not at all care about our differences, because the last time I checked, differences were apart of life. I hope you pay that close attention to your family as you do by the things I say.

Peace

[JRutledge]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Little Jeffrey, the last time I checked, this was a discussion forum, which allows anyone to respond to anyone. If you're whining? Since you whine all the time, it's assumed that you always have cheese and crackers on hand!

Piece

When you are a clinician at one of the camps I attend, then and only then will I consider to even care about your position the way you seem to care about my position on this. You are so right Tony, I only care what one or two think on a discussion board and they do not even live even close to where I do. You need to keep a little perspective.

Peace

[crew]

play calling-in my opinion and the way i feel it is directed toward the question, is about judgement on plays. (i.e. block/charge, goaltending/not goaltending, no-call vs where a whistle is needed.) when i think play calling i am thinking about beating the tape.

game management-in my opinion is knowing the penalty situations and other areas requiring less judgement but application of management/rules. (i.e. people skills, clock management, switches, things behind the scenes that t.v. and fans do not pick up on)

i have to go now but try to chew on this info and i will elaborate and clarify later.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by zebraman
Rut,

Maybe it would be useful if you could post "Rut's rules" here on the board to make sure we don't ever obsess or join in on a discussion that we should "stay out of." You know, things like:

1) This is a basketball officials discussion board, but there is no place for basketball rules discussion here.

2) Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unless it contradicts mine.

3) I don't care what anyone thinks of me or my posts. But if you disagree with me, I will continue to debate until I get the last word.

4) Conforming with a particular assignor's beliefs is much more important than calling the best game that I have been trained to do. You should all feel that way too. My goal is to be a D1 official. Since that is my goal, it should be everyone's goal.

5) If I continue to dredge up an old point and make a new post about it every time I see an article supporting my position, that is just good discussion. If you make a post that doesn't agree with my viewpoint, you are obsessive.

6) I get blamed for everything. You are all out to get me and none of it us brought on by my abrasive posts.

7) If someone agrees with a poster who contradicted my opinion, they need to stay out of the discussion.

Add some more Rut so I can be sure to please you. :-)

Z

You da man, Z!!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by LarryS

Besides, being good at both are not mutually exclusive.

That's the definition of a "good" official!You know the rules,you know how and when(or if) to apply the rules,and you know how to manage a game.Some officials can do it and some will never be able to do it. "Good" officiating isn't exclusive to the D1 mens or higher levels,either.

Good post,Larry.

[JRutledge]

DO NOT READ ANYTHING I SAY. DO NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING I SAY, DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING I SAY.

I hope you feel better now.

Peace

[zebraman]

Like I said Rut, your actions speak WAY louder than your words.

Oh and by the way, I have never participated in any discussion about shoes. :-)

Have the last word.

Z

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by crew
play calling-in my opinion and the way i feel it is directed toward the question, is about judgement on plays. (i.e. block/charge, goaltending/not goaltending, no-call vs where a whistle is needed.) when i think play calling i am thinking about beating the tape.

game management-in my opinion is knowing the penalty situations and other areas requiring less judgement but application of management/rules. (i.e. people skills, clock management, switches, things behind the scenes that t.v. and fans do not pick up on)

Gotcha Crew...I guess I look at it just the opposite...how can you have judgement to tell whether it is a block/charge or goaltending/not goaltending unless you know what the rule about each of those is...I do believe play-calling is the easy part of our job and game management the difficult part...

[crew]

Originally posted by crew
play calling-in my opinion and the way i feel it is directed toward the question, is about judgement on plays. (i.e. block/charge, goaltending/not goaltending, no-call vs where a whistle is needed.) when i think play calling i am thinking about beating the tape.

game management-in my opinion is knowing the penalty situations and other areas requiring less judgement but application of management/rules. (i.e. people skills, clock management, switches, things behind the scenes that t.v. and fans do not pick up on)

i have to go now but try to chew on this info and i will elaborate and clarify later.

being a good referee encompasses these 2 traits. it is difficult to seperate the 2. there are many areas of officiating that game management and play calling that cant be seperated.

an nba referee, a college supervisor(d1), and also a d1 coach answered this question.

supervisor chose a game manager
nba ref chose a play caller
d1 coach chose a play caller
i chose a play caller

the reason i chose a play caller is because i do not want a coach to go to a press conference show a clip of the game and be able to hang his hat on a few plays i got wrong at the end of the game among other reasons(this was the main one)

the askee said that there is no right or wrong answer it is just a personal preference which an official finds more important even if it is just slightly more. i am not saying anyone hear is right or wrong i was just curious to see other peoples opinions.

btw there were about 50 refs in the room and only 3 chose play caller. i did not want to think the game managers were out numbered. it is certainly a difficult decision.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman
Like I said Rut, your actions speak WAY louder than your words.

Oh and by the way, I have never participated in any discussion about shoes. :-)

Have the last word.

Z

OK Z you win. You would turn down a Final Four assignment because you might work with an official that is not up to your rules standards, I would not. To each his own.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

OK - here's my two cents for what it's worth. Theoretically, if I had to choose between a good play caller/bad game manager and a bad play caller/good game manager (although I can't imagine things being that cut and dried), I would choose the good play caller every time.

Why? Because it would be much harder for me to compensate for a bad play caller (this would involve doing things I preach against such as make-up calls, figuring out a way to overrule a partner, deflecting crap from the howler monkeys toward him, etc.) than it would be to compensate for a bad game manager. I think its because I have enough self-confidence (some would say ego - OK, most would) in my own fantastic game management skills that I could easily overcome any problems a partner might cause.

Of course, that doesn't include standing between a partner and Bobby Knight, for example.