Somehow I don't think this thread has anything to do with money.



The phrase "two wrong don't make a right" comes to mind.

I may only have 22 years in this game, but when an experienced partner fishes in my pond, I normally respond with a "thank you." It's cause I was screened off or had other duties to attend to.

I hear the 25/75 studies passed around and I can honestly say I hope I pass on the ones that would've been incorrect calls. I do see things in my periphery but hope I have the experience and patience to pass on all those except those that need to be called.

The threatening part of this post I find disappointing, quite frankly. I do not sit and listen to halftime lectures from crusty old vets -- perhaps because I've slipped into those ranks myself without even realizing it. And sometime I am unhappy about a partner and what he does on the floor, but thankfully the game of basketball has a clock and I can spend my energies working the game and then getting out of Dodge as soon as I can afterwards. I'm certainly not wasting my energy on a "lecture" the guy wouldn't listen to in the first place.

Wow, there sure is a lot of information in this thread. I missed this one because I've been at a camp and them working a "tryout" with pro rules. I only mentioned that because some pro terminology has been thrown around in this thread.

1. The pro game is different from the standpoint of off-ball fouls. Plus, with the size and skill of the players, angles are way more important and I feel that is a reason why officials may call out of what would traditionally be considered their primaries. In these situations, I appreciate the help.
2. There is a difference when talking about the high school or college game where the offenses/defenses require more attention off-ball. Take your best pro official and he/she would not call a college game the same way or it would confuse their partners (who normally do college). There goes part of the validation for comparison.
3. Officials like/love to watch the ball and that is why people always want to find a reason for doing it. For those (of us) officials who understand the fact that you don't call everything you see and you don't see everything, it burns us up when a ball-watcher is recognized.
4. What about team officiating? Everyone can't be the quarterback? Somebody has to do some zone blocking without watching the ball go down field. While all these plays are being recognized to "get it right" who is watching the hen house? How many threads to we have on here about getting a play off ball right? If all your partners need so much help with position adjustments, maybe you should be contacting your assigner, instructional chair or board member.
5. IMO, a good/experienced official knows when to reach and when to leave things alone.

Does everyone realize that the amount of training, local games, etc. can make 5 years the equivalent to 20? Raise your hand it you've ever known an official who thought they deserved assignments because of how long they have been on the board regardless of their skill level. Yep, I thought everyone would raise their hand on that one.

Rich, nothing against you because I don't know you. I just wanted to point that out.

Rocky, if MTD was overreacting, I think you may be under-reacting. You have enough experience to know that officiating isn't a free-for-all where officials just call anything they see on the court. Your first paragraph above may not be that "loose" but you sure aren't going out of your way to explain when and what to do. I say this to you because I know you know better.

I'm not going to compare post-season success with you, but I disagree with how you are thinking. Yes, the NBA mentality is to have more than one set of eyes on certain plays, but that doesn't mean it is a free-for-all.

Are you using the opinions of players to validate your opinion/position?

I think you just made the exact same point that I was making!??!:o

Officiating isn't a free-for-all of calling all over the court. But fiasco never said it was...the "esteemed" members who then jumped all over him acted like he did advocate that "free-for-all" thinking and then went into the "you just try and do that in MY game and see what happens" crap.

When and what to do? Hmmmm...I have always held to the thinking that there are three types of fouls (based on severity and impact of the contact on the play). The fouls make you say:
1) That's a foul.
2) Oh my. That's a foul.
3) OH MY GOD!!! THAT'S A FOUL!!!

When I see a #1 happen outside my primary (and not necessarily on the ball either - I'm not sure why people are throwing around just ball-watching on this thread now), I will not call it. If it happens again, we will discuss it as a crew at the next opportunity - "Hey, did you guys see what 55 and 43 were doing? We comfortable with that?

When I see a #2 happen outside my primary, I might call it, but probably not. But we will definitely discuss it at the next opportunity. "Hey partner, what did you see on that play where..." No "lectures". Just wanting to know what was seen and make sure we are all on the same "page".

When I see a #3 happen anywhere on the court, I will call it. And I don't really care about my partner's ego at that point. If they want to discuss it later, we will.

Rocky, that is a great way to look at things. I know there seemed to be some strong opinions before, but I knew you had the knowledge you just laid out. I hope all the officials who read what you wrote will think about it and ask you questions if they don't understand what you said.

I've seen this work both ways, too. Guys who have 4 years of experience go to a couple of camps and think they're God's gift to officiating. Then something happens on the court and pants are full of poop. I know from my experience in this and a few other sports when to grab a call and when to acknowledge that I may see it, but not *see* it. Reaching across the paint from C at the far post is an example that comes immediately to mind. Unless I am looking through and see something off the wall, I trust my partners saw the play and chose to call nothing.

I only threw the number out to counter-bloviate MTD's post. I'd be more than happy to put my game up against any other little-ole HS official, though. Or are confidence and ego the same thing?

I bloviated on a counter once. But then I had to clean it up. YUK! :p

Bloviate: to speak or write verbosely and windily. To bloviate means "to speak pompously and excessively" or "to expound ridiculously".

Thank you for using that word. I would have said, "I only threw the number out to counter the hot air MTD was blowing in his post." :D

Rich, you are 100% correct. Years don't necessarily indicate how good an official is. When I type something on this forum I often think about a young official reading it. Young(er) officials shouldn't think there is a magical amount of time served to get better games. Every official should attempt to give the assigner no other choice but to give them games. I've moved to several new associations and pissed a lot of people off because they thought I should be treated like a rookie official and they had X amount of years with the association. I don't feel for them one bit because every official has the opportunity to improve and make the assigner's job easier.

I have a question.

Does the proposed 1,2,3 system work well in practice or just on paper, because each individual must have a different idea of what constitutes a foul/violation of each category.

Specifically, what if I think that a play is a 1, but tomegun sees it as a 2, while Rocky reacts to it as a 3? Or what if the primary official deems something a 1, but a partner deems it a 2 or 3? Again we are having the opinion/judgment of the non-primary official override that of the primary official, if we recommend that he put a whistle on the play. That's what I'm against. If the covering official can see the play and makes a decision, the system and principles of teamwork demand that that is what we go with.
I cannot support the way of thinking expressed on here by fiasco that an official doesn't have time to worry about why his partner didn't make a call and that he doesn't even consider that aspect of the play, but just calls what he believes to be right even though his partner has that area. I think that is poor. An official has to give his partner the benefit of the doubt and must go through an extra step of the thought process prior to calling out of his primary, and that extra step is to ask, "Can my partner see that?" One might conclude that he is screened or blocked out, but one might also think, "He's looking right at it." In that last case, blowing the whistle on anything other than a non-basketball play doesn't make sense.

In the end, I see the proposed three-category concept as merely a different way of expressing the same problem as the original travel scenario, only it tricks the reader into thinking that it makes more sense because he analyzes it from his viewpoint with his understanding of what is a 1, 2, or 3 in his mind, while not taking into account what a 1,2, or 3 is in his partner's opinion.

It seems to me that fiasco is considering the much discussed travel to be a category 3, while I'm thinking that it is only a 1. So he would go and get that, while I wouldn't.

I guess that it comes down to a person opinion of what is an important call to go get and what can be or should be left alone.

First of all, if we are going to stick with the "categories", I'm not so sure I would consider any travel call a 3.

We can talk about when to make a call outside our primaries until we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day it boils down to how good the officials are. It takes some skill and judgement to know when to put air in the whistle and when to leave a play alone. It is the difference between looking/calling all over the floor and good crew officiating.

To those officials who want to get every play right, good luck. I say that because while you are looking to help all the time, someone could be getting slaughtered in your area and you will never know about it.

Sure it does...and that is one of the things that separates officials. The really good ones figure out which calls they need to go get and which calls to leave alone. Without knowing fiasco, I would say that he is on the path to learning those things. Is a travel call one that really needs to be be "gotten"? Probably not, but I am sure there are some scenarios where it could happen.

This is also the way I was taught. And, on #3 to have a patient whistle.

My problem sometimes is in Rec Leagues I watch more of the floor due to my inexperienced partners and I have occasionally "stepped on it" when I get an experienced partner(s) during the HS season. I must do better here.

I also agree with the comments in this thread about years of experience vs quality officiating. Good points for the younger officials. I will be going on HS yr 4 coming up and while I am getting better games now, I still have a ways to go yet (IMO).....still work to be done!