game management vs. play calling

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Oz Referee
If you had to pick just one, I would go for a btter play caller (obviously a good referee is balanaced in oth - they are not mutually exclusive).

Here is my reasoning:

Say your "Play Caller" get 99% of the calls right, and has huge game management problems, while your "Game Manager" can manage the game, but only gets, say, 65% of the calls (or no calls) right.

When the play caller kicks a call (1%) there will probably be a game management issue arising. If need be his (or her) partners, referees supervisor or even players/coaches can help out with game management.

On the other hand, when the "Game Manager" kicks a call - there is nobody that can resuce the referee.

In a nutshell, game management can be helped by others - only the referee watching the play can make the call.

YES!! YES!! YES!! I could not have said it better myself. Great call Duane!!

[Mark Dexter]

My take on this whole situation:

You get the call right - half the fans, players, & coaches think you're wrong.

You completely blow the call - half the fans, players, & coaches think you're wrong.

While terrible rule knowledge will show through, I much prefer to work with someone who's at 100% on management and 75% on rules than 75% management/100% rules.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

My take on this whole situation:

You get the call right - half the fans, players, & coaches think you're wrong.

I don't give a rats patoot.

You completely blow the call - half the fans, players, & coaches think you're wrong.

I don't give a rats patoot.

While terrible rule knowledge will show through, I much prefer to work with someone who's at 100% on management and 75% on rules than 75% management/100% rules.

I couldn't work comfortably with someone who got one out of every four calls wrong for an entire game. Furthermore, no one could possibly have such incredible game management skills that they could deflect comments and placate everyone when they get that many obvious calls wrong.

[JRutledge]

I was at the Moody Bible camp tonite and had an assignor say this to my partner.

"Your mechanics are what tell you what kind of an official you are. If you do not have good mechanics, you will tell everyone how confident you are in your calls."

Maybe this does not have to do directly with this conversation, but it kind of goes along with just being a play caller or not. I do think your mechanics kind of indirectly have to do with how you manage the game.

Interesting comment I thought. And something I have always agreed with.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
"Your mechanics are what tell you what kind of an official you are. If you do not have good mechanics, you will tell everyone how confident you are in your calls."

So does that mean that now the question is: would you rather work with a partner who has (a) good play calling ability, (b) good game management skills, or (c) good mechanics?

I'm all for good mechanics, and as I've said before, I worked really really hard on my mechanics. But I know very good officials with lousy mechanics, and average officials wtih really good mechanics. I don't think there's a correlation. Good officials tend to have good mechanics, b/c they've worked hard on all aspects of their game; but I would disagree wtih the blanket statement that mechanics tell what kind of an official you are.

Chuck

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

So does that mean that now the question is: would you rather work with a partner who has (a) good play calling ability, (b) good game management skills, or (c) good mechanics?


Chuck

Your mechanics tells everyone in the gym what you got. They tell everyone that you are in position to make a call, and finally they tell everyone how confident you are about what you are doing.

Now I personally would not say it is the most important factor in choosing an official, but it is high up there. It sure as hell tells me what my partner has or has called, and I do not have to guess. That makes my life very easy I will say that.

In the end this is all personal choice and preference. Of course I would love to always work with officials that have the total package. But the reality is that many officials, including myself are better at one aspect of the game and not that good at others. And in my experience in basketball, officials have a much harder time with the mechanics and the game management aspect to officiating much more than the other sports.

Peace

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I was at the Moody Bible camp tonite and had an assignor say this to my partner.

"Your mechanics are what tell you what kind of an official you are. If you do not have good mechanics, you will tell everyone how confident you are in your calls."

Occasionally, I work with a guy who, frankly, isn't better than mediocre, but he always yells his calls at the top of his lungs. I guess some might think this means he is extremely confident of his decisions, but I think just the opposite. I think he is yelling as an artificial means to "sell" his calls because he knows he is frequently wrong - and believe me, he is.

Now, what does this have to do with good mechanics and having confidence in your calls? I guess I mean you would have to identify which part of good mechanics indicates you have confidence in your calls. Part of good mechanics is communicating with your partner on the result of a call you make, but that does not indicate confidence, in my opinion. Certainly I agree that there are some parts of good mechanics that contribute to your confidence, such as being in proper position, etc., but also remember that being confident in your calls does not make them right.

[zebraman]

I too work very hard on my mechanics, (yes, even this time of year when I'm just doing leagues and tourneys) and take pride in doing them by the book.

However....I would put mechanics at the bottom of the list as to what I find important in a partner. So long as I know what my partner is calling, I couldn't care less if his/her arm is straight, if they raise their arm before pointing direction on an out-of-bounds, if they come to a full stop at the table before reporting a foul, or even if they add some "NBA theatrics" to their calls (you know, the block call where they bounce their fists off their hips instead of doing it right).

Extremely sloppy mechanics might make a coach tend to pick on a ref a little more because they "sense blood," but I've only seen that in newbies.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


Extremely sloppy mechanics might make a coach tend to pick on a ref a little more because they "sense blood," but I've only seen that in newbies.

Z

You are going to tell me that only newbies get hassled? You are kidding right?

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by zebraman
I would put mechanics at the bottom of the list as to what I find important in a partner. So long as I know what my partner is calling, I couldn't care less if his/her arm is straight, if they raise their arm before pointing direction on an out-of-bounds, if they come to a full stop at the table before reporting a foul, or even if they add some "NBA theatrics" to their calls

Thanks, Z. That's what I was trying to say.

Chuck

[eroe39]

Tough question. I would probably go with game manager although no game manager can make up for being an absolutely terrible play caller. I think players, coaches, and fans get pissed off when they believe the calls are stacking up against them and I don't just mean the foul count. The perception of whether a game is called fairly or not is very important. When the players, coaches, and fans leave the game they want to feel like the officials gave them a fair shake, not so much that every play was called correctly.
Please don't think I mean that if a play is absolutely missed that we now have to make up that call. I don't mean that at all. We just chalk that up as miss. What I am talking about is if my partner has a drive to the basket with borderline contact on one end of the floor that I think should of been a foul and he passes I need to remember that and if a borderline contact drive occurs on the other end I need to pass on it as well.
If I notice Kenyon Martin getting too rough in the post on a couple of possessions the next time he gets rough I need to call a foul to settle him down. However, a referee with no game management skills might look at the play I called a foul and say that was too cheap. He or she would not understand that you need to take into account what happened before because if you don't Kenyon will continue to play rough and that player he is matched up with will start to get pissed off and retaliate. Now you might say why don't you get a foul on him from the start. Well, let's say if you go black and white it is too cheap to call a foul the first time. However, referees need to use the accumulation theory. Several touchy contact plays equal one foul. The same follows for handchecking with me. If a player does it a couple of times and I pass on it the next time he does it, although it might be light, I am going to call a foul just to send a message to him to get his hands off so I don't have to make tough decisions all night. The official with no game management skills would look at the play I called a foul and say it was too cheap.
Game management to mean also means that on borderline plays that occur in the last two minutes when the game is out of reach should go the team's way that is down. Again, I am not talking about black and white plays. I am talking about plays that you are not sure about that are tough that could go either way.
Similarly, late in a close game I would not want a tempo setting handcheck or off ball foul called unless it involves an advantage/disadvantage. Now if you looked at the play by itself not in the context of the game you would say it is a foul.
When your partner has had several calls go against team A you need to recognize it. When you have a double whistle with him or her and the foul is against team A you need to take it. Similarly, if their is a foul against team B let him or her take it even if in your primary.
Getting the ball in play quickly after a tough call or after a techncial foul is good game managing.
If a game is going smooth and there is no problems you can pass on borderline plays. If the game is getting rough and out of control you need to call it tighter. I think it is very important to not look at plays just by themselves. You have relate them to what has been called earlier, what the players are doing and how they are adjusting, and what the time and score is. You can't take each play on it's own merit even if by itself you get play after play right. The key to managing a good game is the tough borderline plays. Too many people think game managing is about evening up the foul count or schmoozing the coaches. That is not what it is about to me. OK, I know I went too long. This is a tough argument though with strong points on both sides.

[Oz Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

YES!! YES!! YES!! I could not have said it better myself. Great call Duane!!

Gee Mark...you agreed with me?? Maybe I should rethink my answer (only kidding....)

I still say this is a bit of a no-brainer. It comes down to my point that you (as the "other" referee) can compensate if you are partnered with a ref that has poor game management skills - there is not much you can do to make up for a ref that is not making the right calls....

But hey - that's just my personal opinion, I (unlike some here) have no problem with people disagreeing with me - that is the essence of discussion, voicing, and listening to, different opinions.

[ChuckElias]

Great post, Eli. Especially about being aware of who has been calling fouls against which team. If I've called the last 5 fouls against white, I know I'd appreciate it if my partner jumped in and took the next white foul away from me. In fact, I make sure to mention this in my pregame. The only thing I would say about your post regards the following comment:

Originally posted by eroe39
The perception of whether a game is called fairly or not is very important.

I would say that the fan's perception of a fairly called game is not nearly as important as actually calling the game fairly. I couldn't care less about what the fan thinks as long as my assignor says that I called a good game. I know that on the pro level, the game is for the fans, but you and I both know that the fans don't know diddly about what a fairly called game is. So my feeling is that I go and call a fair game and let whatever chips fall where they may. Just my opinion.

Chuck

[mick]

Originally posted by eroe39
... However, referees need to use the accumulation theory. Several touchy contact plays equal one foul. The same follows for handchecking with me. If a player does it a couple of times and I pass on it the next time he does it, although it might be light, I am going to call a foul just to send a message to him to get his hands off so I don't have to make tough decisions all night. The official with no game management skills would look at the play I called a foul and say it was too cheap....

I'm with you here, Eli.
...Especially when you have been asking him to "clean it up" all night.
I get tired of baby sittin'.
mick

[crew]

Originally posted by eroe39
Tough question. I would probably go with game manager although no game manager can make up for being an absolutely terrible play caller............OK, I know I went too long. This is a tough argument though with strong points on both sides.

eli,
as usual you argue a very strong case. though i think quite a bit of your "book" falls under the umbrella of play calling as well as game management. i feel that one of the best assets of being a great play caller is knowing when to call or not to call borderline fouls, accumulation fouls, and to also utilize play memorization.(play memorization-rough definition-taking a snap shot of "tough" plays that you or your partners have called and calling the same "tough" play consistently all night) these points could arguably be used in both definitions of play calling and game managing. also calling plays that "fit" the game (i feel) falls more towards the play calling side. again, that point can be argued both ways.

in the context that the question was asked, "would you rather have some one that is a game manager or play caller?", i feel we should seperate the two more definitively, put aside the points that can be considered falling under both categories and differentiate the 2.