To reach or not reach

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Uh-oh. One game suspension for using the words "coach", "being" and "right" in the same sentence.

To each his/her own. I prefer to operate in the real world, where officials make mistakes and where coaches are *GASP* sometimes right.

Originally Posted by fiasco

I’ll tell you to do the same for me, and at the next timeout, or at halftime, or after the game, I’ll ask you what you saw and say thanks for getting the play right.

Too bad for the greatest game in the world, that "thank you", isn't the thought process for officials across the board
I guess the easier route would be to say, "stay out of my area."
Trust your partner? Absolutely, but keep the team officiating concept in mind.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Too bad for the greatest game in the world, that "thank you", isn't the thought process for officials across the board
I guess the easier route would be to say, "stay out of my area."
Trust your partner? Absolutely, but keep the team officiating concept in mind.

It's great when you come into my primary and get one right that I was screened out on. But when you come into my primary and get it wrong, especially when it's right in front of me, then both of us look bad. That's not good for the team officiating concept. Respect your partner's primary and trust him.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is exactly why you don't go make that long distance call. Your partner had a valid reason for deciding that the action was legal. You have no right to overrule his judgment of the play. Why do you think that your opinion of the action is superior to your partner's? What do we do when two partners see a play differently? How do we decide whose call takes precedence? You seem to think that it is the one who sounds the whistle. I happen to believe that we should defer to primary coverage areas.

Do you really want to know what I would have done had my partner made a such a travel call directly in front of me?

If I deemed that the player didn't travel by rule, I would sound my whistle a couple of times and loudly say, "No travel. That's an inadvertent whistle," and then quickly administer a throw-in to the team which had the ball. If that embarrasses the other official, that's too bad.
I see no reason why he should get to overrule my decision in my primary coverage area simply by putting air into his whistle. The whistle isn't some magical device which makes one correct.


Was that cranky enough for this thread?

But this goes against 2.6 as was discussed in previous thread

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by fiasco

To each his/her own. I prefer to operate in the real world, where officials make mistakes and where coaches are *GASP* sometimes right.

Yea, and you probably let games go into overtime, too!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

But this goes against 2.6 as was discussed in previous thread

Actually, his point is that the official in the OP made a call; he decided it wasn't a violation. Nevada's point is that you don't have to blow your whistle to make a call.

I agree. In this play, it might to a person well to trust his partner on this one. I have to problem telling a player, "my partner had a better look" if I'm asked politely. I'll say it to a coach, too.

I'll trust my partner on this before I'll trust myself from so far away. I've only made two good corrections on plays like this when my partner missed a call, and it was only information offering each time. "The defense tipped it to the BC" or "The rule allows the player to jump from the FC, catch the ball, and land in the BC on a throwin." I was lead on those, and that's what is meant by "get the call right."

"Get the call right" does not mean, IMO, come rushing in from 35 feet away and get a travel because you disagree with your partner.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Smitty

It's great when you come into my primary and get one right that I was screened out on. But when you come into my primary and get it wrong, especially when it's right in front of me, then both of us look bad. That's not good for the team officiating concept. Respect your partner's primary and trust him.

Agreed. Which is why I only blow the whistle when I'm 101% sure.

And, you being screened out has nothing to do with it. I don't have time to decide WHY you missed the play. Only that you missed it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Agreed. Which is why I only blow the whistle when I'm 101% sure.

And, you being screened out has nothing to do with it. I don't have time to decide WHY you missed the play. Only that you missed it.

Then you aren't doing enough thinking on the court. Attempting to understand what your partner can see and is doing is a major part of officiating. In fact, that's the partnership aspect of it. What you advocate is just calling your own game. It seems to me that you act more like an individual than part of a team.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then you aren't doing enough thinking on the court. Attempting to understand what your partner can see and is doing is a major part of officiating. In fact, that's the partnership aspect of it. What you advocate is just calling your own game. It seems to me that you act more like an individual than part of a team.

There's nothing I can think of that is more "me" centric than letting your partner "live or die" on a non-call that you could have gotten. You're hanging your partner out to dry because of some unwritten code certain officials seem to subscribe to.

The bottom line is that, when the play is over, we'll talk about it. I have my perspective, you have yours. What I "think" is going on may actually not be the case. But when I see something, and I KNOW I see it, I'm going to wait for you to blow your whistle, then I'm following NFHS instruction and blowing my whistle.

I can think of no other reason, other than ego, why an official would have a problem with me reasonably coming into their area to catch something they missed (for whatever reason).

I've had plenty of occasions where a partner picked up something that was in my primary that I missed. That's teamwork, and I've expressed such to partners I've had rather than launching into some meaningless diatribe about "coming into my area" as if I own that section of the court.

[Nevadaref]

First, going with your partner's decision, which you refer to as "live and die with it", is the complete opposite of being "me centric." It's deferring to someone else.

Second, studies have shown that calls made out of one's primary are only correct 25% of the time.

That means that you are screwing up the game 75% of the time.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I can think of no other reason, other than ego, why an official would have a problem with me reasonably coming into their area to catch something they missed (for whatever reason).
.

Very well said. Obvious things need to be called. It's the officials with the ego problems who get upset when those obvious things end up being called by someone else. Most often, they are mad because they have just been "made to look bad" - when, in truth, the crew did their (collective) job.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

First, going with your partner's decision, which you refer to as "live and die with it", is the complete opposite of being "me centric." It's deferring to someone else.

Second, studies have shown that calls made out of one's primary are only correct 25% of the time.

That means that you are screwing up the game 75% of the time.

"Going with your partner's decision," even though you are 100% sure they missed it isn't "deferring." It's just stupid. It's bad officiating. Negligent or lazy, depending on the situation.

I'd be interested in reading this study you refer to. Never heard of it. I seem to recall skepticism on this board about recent officiating "studies."

ETA: I didn't coin the "live and die" phrase. It's from the first page of this thread, which started the discussion.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by fiasco

This isn't my personal philosophy. This is NFHS by the book.

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'm following NFHS instruction and blowing my whistle.

I can see value to both sides of this issue, so I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing with you, at this point, but I would like to see a NFHS citation to your two statements above. Thanks.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

"Going with your partner's decision," even though you are 100% sure they missed it isn't "deferring." It's just stupid. It's bad officiating. Negligent or lazy, depending on the situation.

How are you 100% sure that he missed it, if you aren't considering what he can see? If you don't know whether he was blocked out or had a position which didn't provide an angle, then maybe he had a great look and just made a different decision from you. Now what sounds "me centric" in this guy's opinion is to go over there and make your call, which completely overrides his. That's what I consider "just stupid" and "bad, negligent, or lazy officiating."

Originally Posted by fiasco

I'd be interested in reading this study you refer to. Never heard of it. I seem to recall skepticism on this board about recent officiating "studies."

There have been quite a few done by the NBA and the NCAA.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How are you 100% sure that he missed it, if you aren't considering what he can see? If you don't know whether he was blocked out or had a position which didn't provide an angle, then maybe he had a great look and just made a different decision from you. Now what sounds "me centric" in this guy's opinion is to go over there and make your call, which completely overrides his. That's what I consider "just stupid" and "bad, negligent, or lazy officiating."

I honestly don't know why we're still talking about this. The manual makes it perfectly clear what the NFHS wants us to do. And it's not what you're describing.

It's like you're trying to argue that you're not going to call a travel when a player, after ending his dribble, picks up his pivot foot then returns it to the floor before releasing the ball because you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, rulebook be damned. Blows my mind.