How do you prepare in your area?
 

I've been back in Vegas since March and we recently began to meet as a group to discuss rules. We aren't meeting as an association - the situation with association(s) is horrible here, but that is another story. We are just a group of officials who are talking about the rules and practical application in an effort to improve consistency.

We started with rule 4 and only made it to "Dribble" I believe. We aren't just reading through the book and taking it at face value; we are having discussions about what is actually going to happen in a game.

For instance, we talked about dunking in pregame. My opinion is that we try to find reasons to ignore obvious dunks then when we decide to call it we discuss it with the head coach as if he is going to change our minds. I know there is a fine line, but I'm not debating this with a coach. I will inform him about who dunked, what we are going to do and then - as Jim Birch says - show him my backside. During this discussion the definition of dunking was brought in and someone asked if we are going to call it by the rulebook definition - dunking by touching the rim versus forcing the ball down into the hoop. The group sentiment was no and that would be splitting hairs.

Does anyone else do anything like this? If we did it on here - tried to hit some high points since we can't go over everything - would things get out of hand?

The state of Florida awards "proficiency points" to officials who attend local association meetings. These points accumulate toward a Ranking Level (1 through 3)

Our local associations use meetings (a total of 10 per year) to go through the rule book one section at a time and discuss specific examples or situations where confusion can occur. You don't have to attend every one, but the discussions really do help.

The unfortunate part is that the same 30% of the association seems to attend all the meetings with another 20-25% coming to one or two. Not surprisingly, the 30% who attend most or all the rules meetings tend to be the guys that get the post season assignments as the state uses the Ranking Status as part of their criteria for tournament assignments.

Ultimately...you get out of it what you put in. I've always found them beneficial.

To share some points with you. Before I moved I was in a similar situation that you are talking about. I can honestly say it helped me alot to understand the rules and spirit and intent of them.

To answer your question. I don't believe you can bring that approach to the board. I would say take a look at must discussions on here as they are and you will find your answer.

I agree with you and I think it is a shame that this is the case. Our goal should always be to get better.

If my information is correct as of today there is only one sanctioned association in your area for this coming season.

As far as discussing basketball situations, I'm always up for whatever you wish to talk about. You've had some excellent ideas in the past. Perhaps I'll discover something which will help the training in my area.

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.

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.

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. :p

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?

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.:eek:

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.

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.