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.