To reach or not reach

[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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree with both of you.

Wow, really? Just a few pages ago, you said (quite vehemently):

"I happen to believe that we should defer to primary coverage areas." And proceeded to outline how exactly you would "handle" someone who did not follow this line of thinking.

Now you're agreeing that, as long as you're a "good" official, and it falls within some arbitrary category, you can reach into your partner's area.

Interesting. Why the sudden change in opinion?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Wow, really? Just a few pages ago, you said (quite vehemently):

"I happen to believe that we should defer to primary coverage areas." And proceeded to outline how exactly you would "handle" someone who did not follow this line of thinking.

Now you're agreeing that, as long as you're a "good" official, and it falls within some arbitrary category, you can reach into your partner's area.

Interesting. Why the sudden change in opinion?

I haven't changed my opinion at all. You just don't understand my point.

I wrote the above words in the context of making such a call on a play that your partner could not or did not see, not one which he merely saw differently from you. You have advocated not caring why your partner didn't call what you think should be called, and just making your call. You aren't deferring to the primary official, you are blowing your whistle and overriding his decision. I don't believe that is proper.
However, I agree that it is certainly proper to help with something that your partner isn't able to cover. Good officials know when that occurs. You don't seem to grasp the distinction.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

...it is certainly proper to help with something that your partner isn't able to cover. Good officials know when that occurs...

There you go right there! We can argue back and forth about the words we are typing, but once the ball is tossed good officials will not be spraying calls all over the court. Now, someone could say this conversation isn't about "Spraying calls all over the court", but I would disagree and say some officials look for a license to watch the ball all the time. There are circumstances which require us to go out of our primary, but more times than not we don't need to.

I will not be surprised to hear about an official getting sued because a video shows him "helping his/her partner get it right" while someone is punching little Johnny in the chops.

The ironic thing about this whole conversation is that some officials who think this way are the same ones all in favor of trusting their partners during the pregame. Then, they go out there and forget that they have two or four other eyes to officiate the game.

Again, please don't focus on the words as much as you focus on what takes place while the clock is running. If you watch the ball and always look to help your partner, good luck. But if you are aware of where the ball is, but take care of your primary you probably don't need luck.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I haven't changed my opinion at all. You just don't understand my point.

I wrote the above words in the context of making such a call on a play that your partner could not or did not see, not one which he merely saw differently from you. You have advocated not caring why your partner didn't call what you think should be called, and just making your call. You aren't deferring to the primary official, you are blowing your whistle and overriding his decision. I don't believe that is proper.
However, I agree that it is certainly proper to help with something that your partner isn't able to cover. Good officials know when that occurs. You don't seem to grasp the distinction.

Do you have some sort of ESP that allows you to know for 100% certainty what your partner can or can't see?

My point earlier was not that I don't care what he sees, only that I can't know for 100% certainty what he can see, and neither can you.

I can have an idea. I can make an educated guess, but I can't know for sure.

And neither can you.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Do you have some sort of ESP that allows you to know for 100% certainty what your partner can or can't see?

My point earlier was not that I don't care what he sees, only that I can't know for 100% certainty what he can see, and neither can you.

I can have an idea. I can make an educated guess, but I can't know for sure.

And neither can you.

This thread is funny. NevadaRef thinks that everything on the court is observed and called as seen and planned. He also likes to quote 25% of out of PCA calls are correct. Officials miss calls. Lots of them. It happens to everyone.

Make whatever calls you feel you have to. At higher levels, you won't be staying there if your calls are wrong. You also ruffle some feathers. However, if you are right and protecting the integrity of the game, you'll be just fine, and the ruffled folks (most of which are past their prime anyway) will slowly fade away.