To reach or not reach
 

1st Q of a 2 person game, you're L & a player jumps to shoot a 20 FTer in the Ts lap. Recognizing his shot will be blocked, the player drops the ball, retrieves it (no whistle) then shoots the 15 FTer.

Would you go get that in front of your veteran partner?

3rd Q of the same game, you're T & a player gets a loose ball near the endline in front of the L with one knee on the ground, then stands up prior to dribbling the ball.

Again no whistle, are you going to get that?

The obvious first response is: why are you looking there?

But since we sometimes see things, in the first case, can you be absolutely positively sure that the defensive player didn't touch the ball, causing it to drop? If you didn't see that play from a perfect angle and cannot be 100% sure of what you saw (not what you think you saw), you should let your partner live and die with it.

Second case, again you need to be 100% certain you saw it, and then I would only ever call it if I thought my partner was screened from seeing the kid's knee.

If it's a veteran partner, I'm letting him live and die with it. You shouldn't even be looking there in the first place.

Uhh ohhh there's the ol' HS mentality rearing it's ugly head again :)

The exceptional official can chew bubble gum & walk at the same time, you know, multi-tasking.

I've invested quite a bit of change in myself over the past few summers by attending high level, quality camps, I've mixed in some HS camps as well.

It's funny because the HS camps I've attended all say stay in your primary, etc.

The DI & NBA camps I've attended says referee your PCA while seeing as much of the court as possible. As a matter of fact, they want two sets of eyes on particular plays with congested action areas. You know there are front & back sides to some plays right?

When I had the HS mentality I couldn't get past the first week of HS post-season. Then I started following the higher level camps advice & became a State Tourney Official. Go figure :rolleyes:

Why are you looking there anyway is so basic...
If you have an unengaged match-up (non-competitive for the HS mentality refs) do you just stay there watching those 2 or 4 people or go to the next layer of the play that can hurt you???

In my first scenario, the shooter was a lefty, the T was at half-court on the shooters right side. So I snuck a peek to cover that left arm, if that's okay.
Many times a partners lack of hustle makes the exceptional official have to go outside of their PCA for the good of the GAME.

In the second scenario 8 players were below the FT line extended & I had nothing else going on, so I chose to look down there, if that's okay.

The other day I had a partner guessing on a 3 pt attempt. He didn't position adjust to see the feet & when he signalled the successful make, I said it was a two. He asked why was I looking up there anyway?? I said to help my partner get it right as we are all we got :cool:

FYI post entry plays in a 3 person game requires all 3 officials to work that play.
L looks for illegal contact by offense & defense on entry.
T picks up the pivot foot for travels.
Slot -errr- Ct is preparing for the curl play.

You didn't say it was anything but a HS game, and it is 2 person, so that was where I was coming from. I understand that we see things out of our primary, especially when all (or most) of the players are out of our primary. But the parts of your situations that are most telling are that both scenarois you claim are right in front of your partner. Your veteran partner. So since you didn't like my answer, what would you do? What did you do? How did your partner react? I don't think there's a simple answer for these things. One could certainly argue that getting the play right is the most imoportant thing. My only concern is that you really saw it 100%. Often things look like something from far away but maybe you missed something. If you're comfortable making those calls, maybe you should. I would err on the side of not making those calls if they are right in front of my partner.

I find it interesting that you need to put your resume out there. I'm glad you're so impressed with yourself. Us HS mentality refs should get out of the way. ;)

Smitty - you're starting to sound a little cranky since you left the great state of Oregon. Maybe you should return to the "World's Medical Marijuana Capitol". :D

I am sounding cranky today, but everyone is so sensitive.

Maybe it's the 103 degree heat.

I didn't think I had to say what level it was as basketball is basketball. Sure there are different rules, floor mechanics & signals, but basketball is basketball. Why not position adjust the way the best do it? Why not have the team officiating concept & mentality like the best do?

It wasn't that I didn't like your answer. Actually I did what you said & let him live/die with those. But I felt quite bad when the defensive team in both instances came to me with "you know you saw that, help him out." :(
If it were a gammer, I would've made it right.
If my partner was of equal or less experience, then I would've made it right.

I did ask my partner at the next break, why it wasn't a travel? He said because the ball slipped out of his hands... I knew that wasn't true but decided to leave it alone. I didn't even ask him about the second sitch :rolleyes:

~Ahhh~ I didn't mean it like that Smitty, just explaining the different thought process from level to level & why I think the higher ups do it best!
Hardly impressed with myself Smitty, for I am just a mere HS official myself. The only time I get a sniff of college or pro ball is the summer & I'll be damned if the summer isn't almost over :(
Well just like the Bronco fans say, there's always next year!

"Let him live and die with it" drives me nuts. Mostly because it's not just him that's dying with a bad miss or no-call; the whole crew suffers. Do you think the coaches care whose PCA it is? They perceive us as one unit and they just want us to get the dang play right. An egregious miss or no-call makes the whole crew look bad and makes for the beginning of a long night.

Working last night with a D-II Mens official. I was lead, he was C. Defender blows through a good screen just outside the opposite elbow from me, knocks the screener on his butt. I hesitate a sec but think the C is watching the dribbler who is using the screen and has missed it. So I take a big step out onto the court while putting air in it and raising my arm when I see the C is now calling the foul. So I back down and think nothing of it. At half the guy asks me why I'm looking in his primary. I told him I gave him a crack at it but thought he was going to pass or had missed the obvious illegal contact and I had to go grab it. He was ticked and told me never to do that again.

I just don't understand that logic. I was already looking up toward the FT line area anyway and saw a foul with 100% certainty. I think I was completely in the right but he thought the opposite.

I have no use for cranky officials who would rather follow some "code" than get the play right. Whatever.

There's a reason why it's called PRIMARY coverage area.

No worries. I am a little cranky today it seems. I apologize. I wish you luck with your development.

I think your second post was much more informative of the situation than your original post. Based on your original post, I would stand by my first answer.

The travel is a tough one if you think your partner truly missed it. I will let a travel go most of the time out of my area unless it's in the paint where my partner is clearly screened. Most of the time.

I would have been curious what your partner would have said about the other play - that seems like a much more interesting one. Guess we'll never know.

The only reason I commented on your boasting (or apparent boasting) is because from observation, I get the impression that college officials in general think they are superior to HS officials. I just hope you don't let it go to your head as you move up the ranks. Best of luck to you.

Really? The only time I let anything go is a) if it's out of my area and I'm not 100% sure of the call or b) it's blatantly out of my area and/or sightline and there's no reason I should be looking there in the first place, because I'm gonna get a rash of crap from a coach as to why I'm not paying attention to my primary and I won't be able to give him a good reason.

One of the first games I ever did, I was lead about two feet off the lane line. The ball went from my primary to the other side of the court, then down to the baseline opposite me. The two players I was watching went down into the lane. As my head turned to follow them, I saw the person with the ball blatantly travel. My head was turned that direction because of the players I was following, I waited a split second to see if my partner would call it. He didn't, so I picked it up.

He gave me a rash of crap about "don't call outside your primary." If I had known what I know now, I wouldn't have taken the lecture from him, and would have told him "I call what I see. It's called the PRIMARY for a reason." But, I would've pre-gamed it with him anyway.

This is one of the main parts of my pre-game. I tell my partners "I don't want you to go looking for things in my primary just to look, but if you see something I don't, go get it. I'll do the same for you. This isn't a whistle-blowing ego contest. We're out there to call what we see."

Back@cha sir!

I see that with some college officials too & it's disgusting!! Especially since the decision-makers claim to be looking for good people (but that's another story).
In reality, officials who advance either know the right people, are in the right place at the right time &/or received an opportunity that others weren't afforded. It doesn't mean they are better than anybody, they just got a chance.

If I ever get an opportunity (because it's not promised) I vow not to become that guy.

And if I never get the chance, then I will try to be the best damn HS official I can be.

I agree with this completely.

So, what did you do?
 

ch1,
so, what did you do in the two instances in front of your veteran partner?
what was their reaction and feedback?

I agree with A and also agree with B except the part about the reason for not looking there is because of fear of what some coach might say. That's never a part of my decision making process.

Right, for me, the process of breaking myself of the horrible ball watching habit has been learning not to call what I see when it's in front of my partner. I have made too many phantom travel calls from 35 feet away.

Did your partner take home an equal game check?
Does the "exceptional" official get paid more for the extra calls which you advocate that he should make for his lesser partner?
I don't agree with doing someone else's job.
If you are doing more than your share of the task, then you aren't part of an equal partnership.

This is exactly why you don't go make that long distance call. Your partner had a valid reason for deciding that the action was legal. You have no right to overrule his judgment of the play. Why do you think that your opinion of the action is superior to your partner's? What do we do when two partners see a play differently? How do we decide whose call takes precedence? You seem to think that it is the one who sounds the whistle. I happen to believe that we should defer to primary coverage areas.

Do you really want to know what I would have done had my partner made a such a travel call directly in front of me? :D

If I deemed that the player didn't travel by rule, I would sound my whistle a couple of times and loudly say, "No travel. That's an inadvertent whistle," and then quickly administer a throw-in to the team which had the ball. If that embarrasses the other official, that's too bad. :eek:
I see no reason why he should get to overrule my decision in my primary coverage area simply by putting air into his whistle. The whistle isn't some magical device which makes one correct.


Was that cranky enough for this thread? ;)

I won't be as cranky as Smitty and Nevada, but I'm in the "let it go" camp on this one. It's not a train wreck that needs a whistle to save the game. It's not a player running down the court with the ball and not dribbling that grandpa can see from the parking lot.

BTW, on the 2nd one, I've made this call twice and regretted it both times because I was wrong. I apologized to both veteran officials before they even had a chance to ask me about it.

Don't make me call you cowardly. :D

If I told you to shut up, would I come across as less cowardly?

Yes, we want to get the call correct. BUT, remember: 1) Stay true to your boundary lines; 2) Officiate your primary; and 3) TRUST your partner(s).


Yes, there are times when an official should extend his primary but 99.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 ,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,9 99,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 ,999,999,999,999,999...% of the time it should be off ball coverage in the same area that your partner has on ball coverage.


AND, DO NOT be a ball watcher.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. I delveloped a great training aid for officials who want to watch the ball and make calls on the ball out of their primary. It involves electrodes and a heavy duty marine battery, :D.

So Pure, It Floats ...
 

Wow. That's higher than Ivory soap, 99 44/100 %.

I would really, really love for Tomegun to chime in on this topic. :D

See paragraph 2 of post #7

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with the coach being right.

I couldn't care less what you would do. I couldn't care less if I make you look bad, either. If I see something that you miss, and I'm in position to make the call, I'm doing it. I'd rather get the play right than worry about your ego.

Remeber, "Calls may be made outside an official's primary area, but the primary official should be given the first opportunity to make the call."

And what makes you think I missed the call. Officiate your primary and trust your partner (especially when it involves him making a judgement call on the ball). I won't say anything the first time you put air in your whistle to make a call on the ball when I have on ball coverage; I will assume that you had a brain fart. But if you persist in making a habit it we are going to have a serious one sided conversation very quickly.

MTD, Sr.

Uh-oh. One game suspension for using the words "coach", "being" and "right" in the same sentence. :(

Who knows. Maybe you didn't have a good angle. Maybe you are the one who had the brain fart. Maybe you just plain missed it. But as I said before, if I see it, and it’s not outrageous for me to be looking there, and you miss it, and I’m 100% sure, I’m calling it. I don’t have time to go through all the scenarios as to why you didn’t call it. It just needs to be called.

Trust me, it won't be one-sided. I’ll happily point out that, as I’ve said before, it’s not called your ONLY area of coverage, it’s called your PRIMARY area of coverage. I’ll give you the chance to put air in your whistle, but if you don’t, and I see it for sure, I’m blowing the whistle.

As I said, in my pre-game, I’ll tell you to do the same for me, and at the next timeout, or at halftime, or after the game, I’ll ask you what you saw and say thanks for getting the play right.

This isn't my personal philosophy. This is NFHS by the book. Get It Right, No Matter What.

To each his/her own. I prefer to operate in the real world, where officials make mistakes and where coaches are *GASP* sometimes right.

Too bad for the greatest game in the world, that "thank you", isn't the thought process for officials across the board :(
I guess the easier route would be to say, "stay out of my area."
Trust your partner? Absolutely, but keep the team officiating concept in mind.

It's great when you come into my primary and get one right that I was screened out on. But when you come into my primary and get it wrong, especially when it's right in front of me, then both of us look bad. That's not good for the team officiating concept. Respect your partner's primary and trust him.

But this goes against 2.6 as was discussed in previous thread

Yea, and you probably let games go into overtime, too! :eek:

Actually, his point is that the official in the OP made a call; he decided it wasn't a violation. Nevada's point is that you don't have to blow your whistle to make a call.

I agree. In this play, it might to a person well to trust his partner on this one. I have to problem telling a player, "my partner had a better look" if I'm asked politely. I'll say it to a coach, too.

I'll trust my partner on this before I'll trust myself from so far away. I've only made two good corrections on plays like this when my partner missed a call, and it was only information offering each time. "The defense tipped it to the BC" or "The rule allows the player to jump from the FC, catch the ball, and land in the BC on a throwin." I was lead on those, and that's what is meant by "get the call right."

"Get the call right" does not mean, IMO, come rushing in from 35 feet away and get a travel because you disagree with your partner.

Agreed. Which is why I only blow the whistle when I'm 101% sure.

And, you being screened out has nothing to do with it. I don't have time to decide WHY you missed the play. Only that you missed it.

Then you aren't doing enough thinking on the court. Attempting to understand what your partner can see and is doing is a major part of officiating. In fact, that's the partnership aspect of it. What you advocate is just calling your own game. It seems to me that you act more like an individual than part of a team.

There's nothing I can think of that is more "me" centric than letting your partner "live or die" on a non-call that you could have gotten. You're hanging your partner out to dry because of some unwritten code certain officials seem to subscribe to.

The bottom line is that, when the play is over, we'll talk about it. I have my perspective, you have yours. What I "think" is going on may actually not be the case. But when I see something, and I KNOW I see it, I'm going to wait for you to blow your whistle, then I'm following NFHS instruction and blowing my whistle.

I can think of no other reason, other than ego, why an official would have a problem with me reasonably coming into their area to catch something they missed (for whatever reason).

I've had plenty of occasions where a partner picked up something that was in my primary that I missed. That's teamwork, and I've expressed such to partners I've had rather than launching into some meaningless diatribe about "coming into my area" as if I own that section of the court.

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.

Very well said. Obvious things need to be called. It's the officials with the ego problems who get upset when those obvious things end up being called by someone else. Most often, they are mad because they have just been "made to look bad" - when, in truth, the crew did their (collective) job.

"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.

I've Only Got An IAABO Manual ???
 

I can see value to both sides of this issue, so I'm not agreeing, or disagreeing with you, at this point, but I would like to see a NFHS citation to your two statements above. Thanks.

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."

There have been quite a few done by the NBA and the NCAA.

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.

Citation ???
 

Citation please.

Maybe you were looking to use the word cowardly.
;)

Billy:

Ivory Soap isn't the only thing that floats, :D.

MTD, Sr.

fiasco:

It is obvious from your posts, that you are either a very very inexperienced basketball official or a troll. I have decided that you are a very very inexperienced basketball official and not a troll. I am not going to tell you my basketball officiating background because there are many many members of this board that will tell you that like the E.F. Hutton commerials of old, when I speak, people listien (at least they humor me and act like they are listening, :D).

Now listen carefully, and I do mean listen and do what I tell you. Your first responsibility is to officiate your primary coverage area (PCA), and NOT officiate your partner(s) PCA. I can assure you that with ten (10) players running around on a court that is only 50 ft by 84 ft (H.S. dimensions) in size, you will have all the more than enough to do without worrying about your partner(s) PCA.

With regard to fishing in my pond when you have enough fish in your own pond, you can bet your sweet bippy (Google Rowan and Martin's Laugh In) that the conversation that we have will be one sided and I will be doing talking and you will be doing the listen, and if you still insist in fishing in my pond I have the experience to make the rest of our game a living hell for you. And I can do it while still looking and acting professional.

So get your head and a$$ wired together (ask a Marine what that means) and get rid of the notion that you and only you have the correct call on everything that happens on the basketball court even if it happens in your partner(s) PCA.

Am I irritated with your attitude right now? Yes I am. I just wish that you could attend a basketball officials camp and I could be a staffer at that camp. Your attitude would go over with that camp staffers like a lead ballon.

I will end this lecture at this point.

MTD, Sr.

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.

You sure do make a lot of logical leaps in your post. Do you do the same on the basketball court?

I couldn't care less what you think about my attitude. For some reason that's supposed to change how I officiate?

ETA: It's pretty clear from your post ("I will make the game a living hell for you") that you're probably one of the officials I was talking about in terms of ego. If you're going to make my game a "living hell" for me for following the prescribed NFHS mechanics, well, God help the people you really DO work with. Sheesh.

You actually did the same thing with me in the adult league thread. It's not so nice, is it?

I don't think you actually deserved what MTD said, so I wouldn't comment on that. I think I do understand what you are saying, and I think there are plenty of shades of gray on this subject. But I still would tend to assume that my partner has a better look than me in his primary. There are times when you really think you see something across the court, but your partner tells you it didn't happen that way when you talk about it later. I'm not sure you can be 100% certain when you're 30 feet away, but sure - once in a while you will be right. I believe a lot of what Nevadaref said to be more accurate, and to be the way the very top guys in my old association expected their partners to work. These guys almost say exactly what Nevada said - respect each other's primaries. If I don't call something in my primary, there's probably a reason. Never ever call anything right in front of me. In the paint - they might get screened if they are lead, but give them first shot - minimize the double whistles. That's the way I think the game should be called.

We miss a lot of things during a game - but blatantly getting one wrong from 30 feet away can really turn things sideways for you and your partner.

Go back and read the thread, Smit. You started the logical leaps by claiming that I "have fun" handing out technical fouls. It all went downhill from there.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I agree with your post.

Thank you - I think there was some miscommunication in the other thread and I didn't really mean what you think I meant, but I'm not going to dredge up all of that again. I have some big tournaments this weekend and next. I'm going to pay attention to how my partners and I work our areas and see if I would change my mind about any of these points.

One thing I agree with you wholeheartedly about is discussing this in your pregame with your partner(s)*. It's really important, no matter which philosophy you choose, that you're both (or all three) on the same page.

* I need to learn three man so I need to stop thinking in a 2-man only frame of mind

Again, agreed.

I've worked with some partners probably just as or even more experienced than our friend MTD, and I've had this pre-game discussion with them as well. Kind of strikes me as funny that MTD gets all bent out of shape when none of these partners ever did. They never made my game "a living hell" either. I actually really enjoyed them and learned a lot.

Strange teaching method, if you ask me.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...
 

Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg is a lake in the town of Webster, Massachusetts, located near the Connecticut border. It is often cited as the longest place name in the United States and one of the longest in the world.

The name comes from the language of the local Nipmuc people. The lake was an important fishing spot on the borders of several tribal territories. Algonquian speaking peoples had several different names for the lake as recorded on old maps and historical records. However, all of these were similar in part and had almost the same translation. The translation of the name of the lake is believed to be, "You fish on your side, I fish on my side, and nobody fish in the middle".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._lake_sign.jpg

Well, that's fine for the lead and trail, but what about the center? :confused:

Native American Mechanics ...
 

The Nipmuc tribe used two-person mechanics. That's all they had back then.

At least it's not cowardly.

Somehow I don't think this thread has anything to do with money.



The phrase "two wrong don't make a right" comes to mind.

I may only have 22 years in this game, but when an experienced partner fishes in my pond, I normally respond with a "thank you." It's cause I was screened off or had other duties to attend to.

I hear the 25/75 studies passed around and I can honestly say I hope I pass on the ones that would've been incorrect calls. I do see things in my periphery but hope I have the experience and patience to pass on all those except those that need to be called.

The threatening part of this post I find disappointing, quite frankly. I do not sit and listen to halftime lectures from crusty old vets -- perhaps because I've slipped into those ranks myself without even realizing it. And sometime I am unhappy about a partner and what he does on the floor, but thankfully the game of basketball has a clock and I can spend my energies working the game and then getting out of Dodge as soon as I can afterwards. I'm certainly not wasting my energy on a "lecture" the guy wouldn't listen to in the first place.

Wow, there sure is a lot of information in this thread. I missed this one because I've been at a camp and them working a "tryout" with pro rules. I only mentioned that because some pro terminology has been thrown around in this thread.

1. The pro game is different from the standpoint of off-ball fouls. Plus, with the size and skill of the players, angles are way more important and I feel that is a reason why officials may call out of what would traditionally be considered their primaries. In these situations, I appreciate the help.
2. There is a difference when talking about the high school or college game where the offenses/defenses require more attention off-ball. Take your best pro official and he/she would not call a college game the same way or it would confuse their partners (who normally do college). There goes part of the validation for comparison.
3. Officials like/love to watch the ball and that is why people always want to find a reason for doing it. For those (of us) officials who understand the fact that you don't call everything you see and you don't see everything, it burns us up when a ball-watcher is recognized.
4. What about team officiating? Everyone can't be the quarterback? Somebody has to do some zone blocking without watching the ball go down field. While all these plays are being recognized to "get it right" who is watching the hen house? How many threads to we have on here about getting a play off ball right? If all your partners need so much help with position adjustments, maybe you should be contacting your assigner, instructional chair or board member.
5. IMO, a good/experienced official knows when to reach and when to leave things alone.

Does everyone realize that the amount of training, local games, etc. can make 5 years the equivalent to 20? Raise your hand it you've ever known an official who thought they deserved assignments because of how long they have been on the board regardless of their skill level. Yep, I thought everyone would raise their hand on that one.

Rich, nothing against you because I don't know you. I just wanted to point that out.

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'm not going to compare post-season success with you, but I disagree with how you are thinking. Yes, the NBA mentality is to have more than one set of eyes on certain plays, but that doesn't mean it is a free-for-all.

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

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

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.

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've seen this work both ways, too. Guys who have 4 years of experience go to a couple of camps and think they're God's gift to officiating. Then something happens on the court and pants are full of poop. I know from my experience in this and a few other sports when to grab a call and when to acknowledge that I may see it, but not *see* it. Reaching across the paint from C at the far post is an example that comes immediately to mind. Unless I am looking through and see something off the wall, I trust my partners saw the play and chose to call nothing.

I only threw the number out to counter-bloviate MTD's post. I'd be more than happy to put my game up against any other little-ole HS official, though. Or are confidence and ego the same thing?

I bloviated on a counter once. But then I had to clean it up. YUK! :p

Bloviate: to speak or write verbosely and windily. To bloviate means "to speak pompously and excessively" or "to expound ridiculously".

Thank you for using that word. I would have said, "I only threw the number out to counter the hot air MTD was blowing in his post." :D

Rich, you are 100% correct. Years don't necessarily indicate how good an official is. When I type something on this forum I often think about a young official reading it. Young(er) officials shouldn't think there is a magical amount of time served to get better games. Every official should attempt to give the assigner no other choice but to give them games. I've moved to several new associations and pissed a lot of people off because they thought I should be treated like a rookie official and they had X amount of years with the association. I don't feel for them one bit because every official has the opportunity to improve and make the assigner's job easier.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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

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.

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

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!

Pure gold right there.

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.

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 :rolleyes:).

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.

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

Really? Where did I advocate that? I'd love for you to point it out.

(cue jeopardy music)

Couldn't find it, eh?

What I did say is that I don’t have time to decide WHY my partner didn’t make the call.

Would you rather I stop play, go over to my partner and ask “Hey, Joe. I noticed you didn’t call that blatant travel that was in your primary. Was that because you passed on it or because you were screened out?”

No, I have to make a judgment call. (hmm....Joe missed that blatant travel call. Maybe he was screened out)....NEWS FLASH: WELCOME TO OFFICIATING 101. It's all about judgment calls.

Gee, thanks. I've been told by multiple partners and evaluators that I'm a great partner and have great "awareness" on the court. But bully for you for being able to ascertain my officiating abilities from an internet message board. :rolleyes:

Coach: Nevada, wasn't that a foul?
Nevada: It was, but then I changed my mind and decided it wasn't.

:p

I am sorry; I could not read all of this as this discussion is somewhat repetitive. ;)

I will just say this; you have to understand the game and the mechanics. In one of our State Final Games this past year on the Boy's side, there was a play where the Trail was on a play and for some reason, did not call a foul that everyone could clearly see on a steal attempt near the middle of the floor. A veteran official for some reason either had a brain fart or cracked under the pressure and one of our own (who does not come here anymore to my knowledge) made a great call in the coverage area of his partner. Not only was this an unusual situation, but it was kind of a game saver on many levels. If this foul was not called, the hinges might have come off the doors of this game. This was a rare play in the game and if I recall there was not another moment in the game where this kind of play needed this kind of attention. It was a great get from the official that was calling out of his area, but everyone clearly saw a foul and if this did not get called, the game would have been in jeopardy.

That is not the case most of the time. This should be a rare occurrence that you need to call out of your area (if not in the lane BTW) in the first place. And honestly I do not understand why this keeps coming up, other than officials that do not understand the terminology or the mechanics systems to know when these things have difference. I can move this discussion to other sports I work and there are clearly things I would not ever call that my partner is responsible for and I am fine with this, even if they are completely wrong. If you call all over the floor when it is not necessary, a coach or player is going to expect you to call a foul in a situation where it would not be necessary in the first place.

Peace

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. :cool:

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.

I ref'd Pro-Am this weekend, those players weren't any different. And my rule of thumb at each level (HS/NCAA/Pro-Am) is to refer any complainant to the calling official.

Not sure about the league in the 2up 2down, but we have current NBA & D-League players & they are very different from HS/NCAA players :D

More pushback, but less time to moan as the game is very fast paced.

I am going to comment more on this topic at a later date but just to address your statement to pro players that he did a good job playing through the contact is not a good idea IMO. In fact I would say a lot of guys would say its a bad idea. There is a better likelihood that it will end up hurting you than helping you. Most the pro guys I know would say back to you something about it don't matter so just blow the damn whistle. I would only address the play if the player brings it up.

Perhaps... just like communication with the coaches (at any level) you gotta know who you're dealing with. Being my 3rd yr in the league, I know who I can/can't say those types of things to.

As a matter of fact, comments like that (to certain players/coaches) helps the game in some instances! Sometimes it diffuses the pushback when you feel it coming on.
Acknowledging non-verbal concerns of players/coaches is not ALWAYS a bad thing. Why not resolve the situation before it blows up? Another part of GM skills.

I guess one would have to have a "feel" for the game to do those types of things successfully :cool:

I agree with you on your points but players don't discern contact like we officials do so as I said previously I don't see how telling a player, even if you are attempting to thwart his non verbal reaction to the play, that he did well playing through the contact will aid you in the long term cause I am not only telling you but I promise you it will bite you. But sometimes as a young official you have to get bit before he truly takes hold. I definitely know that and am still learning that but I have also learned to listen a little more often to my more experienced partners so that I don't have to get bit. Would you mind me asking how old you are? You just sound a lot like I did in my early years of officiating. Heck im still in my early years!