How do you prepare in your area?

[JRutledge]

Most of the associations in my area have some sort of pre-season meetings. In my associations we discuss rules and situations and teach officials how to handle situations. There are many presentations by members and issues involving plays, rules and mechanics we go over constantly. Not to say there are not individual discussions or group discussions from time to time. But a great deal of the preparation is within the organization.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Most of the associations in my area have some sort of pre-season meetings. In my associations we discuss rules and situations and teach officials how to handle situations. There are many presentations by members and issues involving plays, rules and mechanics we go over constantly. Not to say there are not individual discussions or group discussions from time to time. But a great deal of the preparation is within the organization.

Peace

My question to you, Nevada, Tony, etc. is this: do you think official association meetings or whatever you currently have in place is cutting it? We will never be perfect, but shouldn't we keep trying to get officials consistent? The goal of our sessions isn't to teach the rules; it is more about the realistic application of the rules. I'm of the opinion that far too many officials apply the most obscure rules just because they know it from the test.

Another example: while team A is in control of the ball A1 passes the ball to A2. While the pass is in the air A3 requests timeout.

After hearing some opinions, I will come back and tell everyone how this conversation went.

[Smitty]

If you have a very large association (Portland was ~350 and Dallas is over 400 I think), then an association meeting is a good place to say very general things that everyone needs to be on the same page about. But I think it's a very poor place to go over game situations and have a quality discussion on the various interpretations. There are just too many opinions in the room, and not enough time to have a really useful conversation about the topic. Plus half the people aren't paying attention anyway.

I like your idea of having a smaller group get together for the sole purpose of going over situations. Like this forum, it gets you thinking in different ways when someone else offers a different perspective.

I am anxious to see how the Dallas association meetings work compared to Portland.

[Mark Padgett]

Our local rec league prepares by having just one pre-season meeting. Mostly, we go over the differences between our rec rules and NF rules. I make up a "matrix" showing the differences at the different grade levels. This takes about 30 minutes to review. Then, the experienced guys leave and the newbies stay for another hour to go over mechanics and floor positioning. We usually assign an experienced ref to do on-site mentoring during the newbie's games their first season. That guy gets paid a full game fee, so the guys don't mind doing it at all.

If someone misses the meeting, they have to fill out a form that says:

I missed the meeting because
a) I was hit by a car that day and was in the hospital
b) Some other reason

If a), they can continue in the program. If b), they are dropped.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Another example: while team A is in control of the ball A1 passes the ball to A2. While the pass is in the air A3 requests timeout.

After hearing some opinions, I will come back and tell everyone how this conversation went.

I would assume this should be a short conversation. Wait until A2 catches the ball, make sure A3 still wants the TO, then grant it. Otherwise, you have an accidental whistle situation, and you don't want to get me started on that... In fact, wasn't this a POE last year?

I agree with Smitty that full association meetings might be a bad time to try and discuss off-the-wall items. But they can be useful to have leadership mention various specific plays, how they've seen them called, and how they should be called to have members be more consistent. Small groups are great for discussion, but what if you guys decide, in your example above, to just grant the TO to A anyway even if the pass is in the air, because, what the hell, they deserve it. How does that help consistency over the entire association?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would assume this should be a short conversation. Wait until A2 catches the ball, make sure A3 still wants the TO, then grant it. Otherwise, you have an accidental whistle situation, and you don't want to get me started on that... In fact, wasn't this a POE last year?

It wasn't a short conversation because one official thought it is OK to grant a timeout when the ball is in the air, being passed between teammates. His rationale is there is team control during the pass. Even the former rules interpreter, who is currently on the NFHS rules committee, said this is OK by rule.

I will wait for the teammate to catch the pass; a player will clearly have control of the ball.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tomegun

It wasn't a short conversation because one official thought it is OK to grant a timeout when the ball is in the air, being passed between teammates. His rationale is there is team control during the pass. Even the former rules interpreter, who is currently on the NFHS rules committee, said this is OK by rule.

I will wait for the teammate to catch the pass; a player will clearly have control of the ball.

No wonder we're getting screwy rulings from the NFHS when we have people on it who can't get the basics right.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tomegun

It wasn't a short conversation because one official thought it is OK to grant a timeout when the ball is in the air, being passed between teammates. His rationale is there is team control during the pass. Even the former rules interpreter, who is currently on the NFHS rules committee, said this is OK by rule.

I will wait for the teammate to catch the pass; a player will clearly have control of the ball.

As Camron said, it's too bad none of them know about 5-8-3(a), or 5-8-3 SIT(F). Both the rule and case play clearly say the request should be granted only when in control by a player of his/her team.

Iirc, the Fed. also had this issue as one of their POE's last season in the pre-season meetings, newsletter and presentations. The play they brought up was where a team had control in the front court, there was a loose ball scramble, and one of the coaches started yelling for a TO during the scramble. The point was to tell officials that during this play they need to make sure a player has control before actually granting the TO. They were also telling the coaches that just because they request a TO, doesn't mean they're entitled to one, and the officials' first duty is to the play on the floor and not to listen to the coaches, so it is possible the officials might not even hear the request.

We also have a state rules interpreter that told us, in the above play, that the official, after noting the ball was not in control by a player at the time of the whistle, does not grant the TO, and the ball is then put in play by AP! This obviously goes contrary to a couple of different rules and case plays, including 5-8-3 SIT (F) directly.

But this goes to the consistency issue you ask about - the NFHS does not control how the rules and mechanics are enforced. That is done at the state and even local level, and there are obviously widely conflicting views as to how it "should be done". Therefore, it will be hard to ever come up with a true concensus on every issue unless there is one governing body that will be "in charge". In the meantime, association meetings are a good place to find out how everyone else in the area is making a particular call, so you don't stand out. Perhaps you can work in the background to get a particular mechanic or local interp changed, or even become a senior member, officer, or interpreter so you can tell others the proper way to do things. Otherwise, how do you handle a senior member or interpreter that says, "We're not going to do it that way, because it's not fair; we're going to do it this way instead"?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I would assume this should be a short conversation. Wait until A2 catches the ball, make sure A3 still wants the TO, then grant it. Otherwise, you have an accidental whistle situation, and you don't want to get me started on that... In fact, wasn't this a POE last year?

In NCAA-M (don't know about NCAA-W) you could go with an accidental whistle and not grant the time-out and give the ball back to A b/c of team control. In FED you would have to grant the time-out then give A a throw-in due to team control.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

My question to you, Nevada, Tony, etc. is this: do you think official association meetings or whatever you currently have in place is cutting it? We will never be perfect, but shouldn't we keep trying to get officials consistent? The goal of our sessions isn't to teach the rules; it is more about the realistic application of the rules. I'm of the opinion that far too many officials apply the most obscure rules just because they know it from the test.

Another example: while team A is in control of the ball A1 passes the ball to A2. While the pass is in the air A3 requests timeout.

After hearing some opinions, I will come back and tell everyone how this conversation went.

The goal of the meetings from my point of view is to give officials a vehicle to discuss rules and mechanics. It is not the association's job to hold the hand of every official. I also think the goal of consistency is also a fallacy as well. For one thing, officials in my association are not guaranteed to work with each other. Most of the time when I work games it is probably more common that I might work with 2 other officials that do not belong to the same organization that I do. All I try to do is teach officials in my association the rules and mechanics they need to know. It is up to them to take the extra mile to go to camps and continue their education with veterans to get better.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The goal of the meetings from my point of view is to give officials a vehicle to discuss rules and mechanics. It is not the association's job to hold the hand of every official. I also think the goal of consistency is also a fallacy as well. For one thing, officials in my association are not guaranteed to work with each other. Most of the time when I work games it is probably more common that I might work with 2 other officials that do not belong to the same organization that I do. All I try to do is teach officials in my association the rules and mechanics they need to know. It is up to them to take the extra mile to go to camps and continue their education with veterans to get better.

Peace

You are right. So since our sessions have nothing to do with the association and are not mandatory in any way, that would probably fit your definition of going the extra mile.

Explain to me why you think consistency is a fallacy. Are you saying that because you think it will never happen or are you saying that because you don't think we can do anything to improve it. If you believe we can do SOMETHING to improve it, why not try? Any improvement will make the game better.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

You are right. So since our sessions have nothing to do with the association and are not mandatory in any way, that would probably fit your definition of going the extra mile.

Explain to me why you think consistency is a fallacy. Are you saying that because you think it will never happen or are you saying that because you don't think we can do anything to improve it. If you believe we can do SOMETHING to improve it, why not try? Any improvement will make the game better.

Unless you are all working for the same person or under the same umbrella all the time, people are going to bring their individual philosophies, experiences and point of views to the table. Honestly I do not really understand why people are so concerned with what every official does in games they do not work. You do not get that kind of consistency at the NCAA level, so why would those expect it at the high school level? My position is not about improvement; my comments are what should be the realistic expectations. What you are doing is great, but there are just too many people to expect everyone to get on board with any plan.

Peace

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

In the meantime, association meetings are a good place to find out how everyone else in the area is making a particular call, so you don't stand out. Perhaps you can work in the background to get a particular mechanic or local interp changed, or even become a senior member, officer, or interpreter so you can tell others the proper way to do things. Otherwise, how do you handle a senior member or interpreter that says, "We're not going to do it that way, because it's not fair; we're going to do it this way instead"?

Maybe I wasn't clear in my original question. In my case, I guess I would be considered one of those senior members even though I just got back into town. Also, the new interpreter is one of my friends and he goes to these sessions too. In other words, if I don't like something he is saying, he is my friend and I will let him know. But, he wants the association to improve and be consistent so that doesn't really happen.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Unless you are all working for the same person or under the same umbrella all the time, people are going to bring their individual philosophies, experiences and point of views to the table. Honestly I do not really understand why people are so concerned with what every official does in games they do not work. You do not get that kind of consistency at the NCAA level, so why would those expect it at the high school level? My position is not about improvement; my comments are what should be the realistic expectations. What you are doing is great, but there are just too many people to expect everyone to get on board with any plan.

Peace

Again, maybe I should be more clear. Consistency, on the high school level has more to do with consistency within an association. The problem is we have officials who talk a good game and supposedly know it all, but the only thing consistent about their game is they consistently get themselves into a bind. We are also trying to get officials we work with locally to understand application of the rule book instead of just knowing how to pass the test. I will be working with many of these officials so I absolutely care about how prepared they are.

I have had this discussion with Rut before; I think it is time we start talking less and being able to do more.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Again, maybe I should be more clear. Consistency, on the high school level has more to do with consistency within an association. The problem is we have officials who talk a good game and supposedly know it all, but the only thing consistent about their game is they consistently get themselves into a bind. We are also trying to get officials we work with locally to understand application of the rule book instead of just knowing how to pass the test. I will be working with many of these officials so I absolutely care about how prepared they are.

I have had this discussion with Rut before; I think it is time we start talking less and being able to do more.

Here is the thing, trying to get consistency in my area is even less likely when people in their area do not work with the people in their association. So if you have 3 different officials with 3 different associations how are they going to get consistency when they all might be coming to the table with different points of view? In other words we are not going to get there by talking before the season and coming to a consensus. We can come to some consensus in pre-game and following other mandates with the IHSA. But talking in meetings is only going to get the people in the room on the same page, not when the season starts unless you are fortunate to work with the same people.

Peace