To reach or not reach

[rockyroad]

The bottom line here - imho - is that if you see something that needs to be called to keep the game from going down the toilet, then call it for God's sake. If one of your partners gets all bent because it was "in my primary", then you can discuss it later. He/she probably won't change their point of view, (as fiasco said, that's an ego problem on their part), but you know you did what was best for the game. I learned long ago that the pyramid starts with 1)Protect the integrity of the game.

And MTD, Sr., I think maybe you are overreacting just a little bit (well, actually a lot). The way I read this thread, I don't see fiasco saying that he does this "fishing in your pond" on a regular basis. If that's the case, then sure there is a problem. But with your lengthy career, you know good and well that there are times when you have seen something happen in a partner's primary, and you thought "Holy sh!t!!" and you have made that call. And if the partner was upset, you discussed it later. You made that call because it was 1)the right call, 2)at the right time, 3)for the right reason. Even though it wasn't in your primary area.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

The bottom line here - imho - is that if you see something that needs to be called to keep the game from going down the toilet, then call it for God's sake. If one of your partners gets all bent because it was "in my primary", then you can discuss it later. He/she probably won't change their point of view, (as fiasco said, that's an ego problem on their part), but you know you did what was best for the game. I learned long ago that the pyramid starts with 1)Protect the integrity of the game.

And MTD, Sr., I think maybe you are overreacting just a little bit (well, actually a lot). The way I read this thread, I don't see fiasco saying that he does this "fishing in your pond" on a regular basis. If that's the case, then sure there is a problem. But with your lengthy career, you know good and well that there are times when you have seen something happen in a partner's primary, and you thought "Holy sh!t!!" and you have made that call. And if the partner was upset, you discussed it later. You made that call because it was 1)the right call, 2)at the right time, 3)for the right reason. Even though it wasn't in your primary area.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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

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.

[tomegun]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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 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.

[tomegun]

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

I agree with both of you.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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!!!

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!

Originally Posted by tomegun

Does everyone realize that the amount of training, local games, etc. can make 5 years the equivalent to 20?

Absolutely, especially if the official does an honest self assessment through video breakdown of at least 50% of their games. Seeing plays plays Jan-Dec while others put the gear in attic after March doesn't hurt the accelerated development process either

Originally Posted by tomegun

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

No sir, I'm using what I viewed on the play for validation. I am 110% sure of what I saw, but as previously noted... I left it alone. It wasn't a gammer, but grandma in the 5th row saw it
The opinions of the players (who happen to have a lot of credibility with me) just showed that they (1) trust me & (2) know that I could've made those plays right, as they have seen me make the CC in my PCA in those situations.
Even though travels always seem to be a POE the two situations I described are the elementary ones that we should get right.

I had the first one happen in my PCA at a camp last weekend, I got it right, got commended for making the CC

There was a great piece of advice given to us as far as reaching.

Follow the 3 B's:
Be LATE
Be RIGHT
Be NEEDED

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

No sir, I'm using what I viewed on the play for validation. I am 110% sure of what I saw, but as previously noted... I left it alone. It wasn't a gammer, but grandma in the 5th row saw it
The opinions of the players (who happen to have a lot of credibility with me) just showed that they (1) trust me & (2) know that I could've made those plays right, as they have seen me make the CC in my PCA in those situations.
Even though travels always seem to be a POE the two situations I described are the elementary ones that we should get right.

What the hell is a "gammer"? Do you mean "gamer"?

Grandma's opinion is insignficant. Be careful getting too cozy with the players and their opinions. Once they realize they have your trust, they can work that to their advantage. I know you think you know they are being sincere with you, but they will take advantage if they see an opportunity. Trust yourself and your partner, then you won't need to trust anyone else.

Originally Posted by Smitty

What the hell is a "gammer"? Do you mean "gamer"?

Grandma's opinion is insignficant. Be careful getting too cozy with the players and their opinions. Once they realize they have your trust, they can work that to their advantage. I know you think you know they are being sincere with you, but they will take advantage if they see an opportunity. Trust yourself and your partner, then you won't need to trust anyone else.

My badd gamer it is & I understand your points as well. I dont let them know they've got cred with me & I don't tell players I trust them either. But it's good to know when players trust you!

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

There was a great piece of advice given to us as far as reaching.

Follow the 3 B's:
Be LATE
Be RIGHT
Be NEEDED

I have not heard that one before. Thanks for sharing that Ch1town. I like it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

The opinions of the players (who happen to have a lot of credibility with me) just showed that they (1) trust me & (2) know that I could've made those plays right, as they have seen me make the CC in my PCA in those situations.
..

It just shows that the players are playing you against your partners. They are telling your partners the exact same thing when you miss a call.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It just shows that the players are playing you against your partners. They are telling your partners the exact same thing when you miss a call.

I hear what you're saying BNR, but I wouldn't go THAT far... you're making asumptions
I'm aware of the ol' divide & conquer routine. Doesn't work on me... my partner(s) is all that I have out there & we will be the best team on the court!

My sitch happened in a pro setting, where there is often more pushback from players (grown men) than in HS/NCAA. Our rule of thumb is to refer the complaintant to the calling or non-calling official.
We don't answer for each other.

You've got to be a good communicator or you won't be around long.

"Way to play through the contact" - let's 'em know you saw it & passed.

Many times, they respond with "if I missed was a whistle coming?"

"Perhaps" with a smile or wink.

That's the trust I'm speaking of.