To reach or not reach

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

This thread is funny. NevadaRef thinks that everything on the court is observed and called as seen and planned.

It's obvious you haven't actually read his posts, but thanks for playing.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's obvious you haven't actually read his posts, but thanks for playing.

I've read the whole thread, and I still can't tell what he's saying. One minute he threatens to rip the head off any official who dares set foot in his primary. The next minute, all of a sudden...oh, it's ok to reach if your partner didn't have a good look at it, as if we are supposed to be all-knowing at all times (aprarently you should be able to know if you're a good official ).

You can't know what your partner is seeing, thinking, feeling at all times. As I said, you can make an educated guess, but it's still just that. A guess.

Seems to me Nevada is suffering from selective reasoning.

[Nevadaref]

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.

The point is that I strive to ascertain what my partner can see and is officiating, you have stated that you don't even bother to include that in your officiating. You have advocated just seeing a play in someone else's primary that you think needs a whistle and going right ahead and making a call.

You need to learn a great deal about "partner awareness." Part of that is well described by this poster.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I made the call, because the T recognized I had a count & their body language & eyes told me they were officiating elsewhere.

Originally Posted by fiasco

Seems to me Nevada is suffering from selective reasoning.

Perhaps that's what allows me to be selective about what I call, especially out of my PCA, unlike you.