To reach or not reach

[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.