To reach or not reach

[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.

[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.

[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.

Okay, so the majority of the board says leave it alone/trust your partner.

Let me ask two questions:

1. Same situation but it's a gammer vs. 1st & 3rd Qs, do you all have the same thought process?

2. How about the original sitch, but it's a foul instead of a violation?


Thoughts please.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The manual makes it perfectly clear what the NFHS wants us to do.

Citation please.

[Adam]

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."

At least it's not cowardly.

[Raymond]

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...

Maybe you were looking to use the word cowardly.

[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.

[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.