3 Person game.

Trail is table side. Center is opposite table side.

Team A has the ball in their frontcourt. Team A mishandles the ball and a scramble for the ball has players flying all over the place like it is a fumble in football. Well the T calls an over and back after the scramble on A. The T thought he saw B1 gain possession on the court in the backcourt, scooting the ball to B2 that was in the frontcourt, then B2 steps back on the division line, which would have made this an over and back. But looking at tape, we realized that the T was kind of screened to the play, and the C had a better look. The T came in a sold the call very well, but the C had a better look at the play. The C thought that the call was wrong but did not say anything. Also looking on the tape we figured out that B1 never had possession of the ball as it appeared to the T on the court. He blew the call and there was no question about that.

If this had happen to you, what would you do if you were the C? And what would you do if you were the T?

Peace

If I was Center, I'd quickly move to A's front court.
If I was Trail, I'd go study some more.

If I were the C I would talk to the T tell him exactly what I had seen and leave it up to him to change his call.

If I were the T and my partner came to me and said he was
110% sure I had kicked the call I would change to an inadvertant whistle and get the game restarted a soon as possible.

As this is not a correctable situation, as the center I'd just move to my next spot. You said that the cold was sold well and if neither team complains, then we've done our job.

Watch the tape after and learn from it but I don't think this can be treated like a OOB call where you may need to help your partner.

This call we need to live with and get past.

A little confusing
 

From your post, did you mean to say he called it on B? Sort of confusing the below since A had the ball and B had possession and stepped on the line but then he called back court on A?

[QUOTE"Team A has the ball in their frontcourt. Team A mishandles the ball and a scramble for the ball has players flying all over the place like it is a fumble in football. Well the T calls an over and back after the scramble on A. The T thought he saw B1 gain possession on the court in the backcourt, scooting the ball to B2 that was in the frontcourt, then B2 steps back on the division line, which would have made this an over and back."Peace [/QUOTE]

Mick,

Trail completely understood the rule, he just thought that B1 had complete possession. Which if they pass to B in B's frontcourt and B steps back onto the division line, B has committed over and back. The question is what happen first. The C had a better look, but the division line was not his primary. The T "thought" there was possession when there really was not. Looking on the tape made this very clear. But B2 did step back on the line after it appeared he had possession.

My head is going to hurt after explaining this. ;)

This happen in a camp, that is why we had video tape.


Peace

Rut,
I would have thought the Center was standing right at the division line to help with the action being primarily in the backcourt. And if the center's primary is the entire weak side of the court, that play must have been table-side.
Regardless, the Center saw the play and didn't say a word, that works for me. The Trail guessed, and guessing usually gets me into trouble.
If I were to guess at all my calls, I may as well be a coach, or a fanny.
mick

I agree.
 

No complaint here Mick, I completely agree with you. But my question is what would you do?

If you were the C and knew the call was messed up, would you say anything?

And if you were the T, would you allow the C to give you information to change the call?

And better yet, do you ever explain anything to the coaches?

No question the call was blown, just wanted to know if anyone would have done differently then the crew on the floor?

Peace

Re: I agree.
 

Rut,
<li>If I was C, I ain't saying anything unless T asks for help.
<li>If I was T, and C came to me, then I am gonna change my call as opposed to getting into a big discussion.
<li>For the coaches , I would explain the call if I was the one that made the call. Then, I would be prepared to give them a little more leeway while they explained what they thought of the my abilities.

mick

I agree with Mick. If I'm not asked, I aint saying.

BTW, I had an almost identical play early last year, same
deal, ball & players on the floor. As T I blew for the over
& back, I was certain I got it right, and so did
everyone else in the gym, but after reviewing the play here
(& the other board) I realized I blew it. Oh well. If, at
the time, my partner would have come to me I would have told
him I had it all the way, let's play on.

"I agree with Mick. If I'm not asked, I aint saying."

Then why use the 3 man rotation at all?

I thought that third man was out there to have an extra set of eyes and to get better coverage, to get it right.

No wonder schools don't want to use it, to them it cost
more and they get no better coverage.

I have noticed in the last couple of years a trend of
offcials who are extremely offended if there is a precieved
violation of their sacred primary and if it didn't happen in my primary I want nothing to do with it. meanwhile the
obvious goes uncalled, but its not my problem it was out of my area.

Ah, come on now, it has nothing to do with 3 man or 2 man.
We each have our own responsibilities, and the C does not
referee the mid court line. And BTW, what you have
noticed in the last couple of years is NOT the true trend.
There is a definite emphasis on officials getting together
and getting it right. But this play is not one where the
C should take the intitiative to come in and question
his partner. IMO.

Paul, I had a similiar play during an AAU game this past may. Tell me what you think.

A1 is dribbling in the BC, under pressurefrom B1. I'm C. A2, A3, B2, and B3 are in the BC. In such a situation, I position myself at the FT line extended and move up the floor ahead of the ball. I pause around the 28' hash and again at the division line. A1 passes the ball to A2, who moves to the FC and catches the pass. B2 bats the ball, A2 bats the ball, the ball goes into the BC. The T has stopped, infact moving to become the new lead. A2 touches the ball in the BC. I whistle, BC. T runs to me and says that he thought A2 didn't bat the ball until it was in the BC. However, I'm standing at the division line, so I know that he touched last in the FC and first in the BC. He's good with it and we play.

I didn't have a problem with him coming to me. He didn't have a problem with me making the call, even though I was C. In my mind, that's how the play should work. Thoughts?

Incidentally, a ref behind the table argued the BC call with me for two days. Said the ball was loose, so there was no team control. "Check the book, my friend!" <img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/deal.gif">

I hope I would do this.
 

I really think you missed the point they were making. I too do not completely agree with them either, but I think it does not have to be about the validaty of 3 Person.

This is what we discussed at the camp.

One Clinician said, "The C should have gave the T the information, then let the T make the final decision. Then if the T agreed with what the C had, go to the coaches and say I have an ininvertant whistle and give the ball back to the team that had possession."

I did not think of that personally when I saw the situation happen, but that is the way it was explained to the 3 officials on the court.

Now if I was the C, I would have told the T the information and would have gone from there. Now if I was the T and made the call, I would have accepted the information and realized that we need to get it right. Or at least that is what I would have hoped I would have done. ;)

Peace

Tough luck !
 

I'm not afraid to reach for a call, nor am I territorial.

The larger picture to me is that this was a judgment on T's part. If I question that judgment call, <b>"Where do I stop?"</b>

Do I rip him every time he calls a block on a stationary defender? <li>("Hey, partner the defender didn't even twitch!")

Do I question him every time he calls a travel when the dribbler steps twice with his free foot? <li>("Gees, partner, his pivot remained planted!")

NO! I won't go to my partner and question him unless:
<li>He's looking at me for help.<li>The crowd was all over the call, and so was I.

I won't even question him if he calls traveling on a throw-in.

In many games, I see partners make wrong calls that are contrary to the rules. We'll talk about it (later), but unless it's flagrant or fragrant (just stinks up the gym), I'm gonna trust him to either live with it, or to ask for help. I'm ready to assist, but look at me, or come to me, or something.

In the sitch, T <u>sold the call</u> and made an uncomfortable bed, that is what I think the clinician missed. That is where, I think, the clinician "kicked it" with his suggestion.

mick

If you look at my first post in this thread you will find I agreed with the way it was suggested to be handled.

Bktballref: The way your situation was handled was great
I would have handled it the same way.

My problem was with the C who sees it but will not come over
and help(even if it is not asked for). This just doesn't seem to be good teamwork on the crews part. In this particular case and on this paticular play if the C sees it,
but does nothing then why have him out there at all.

I have no problem the the areas of coverage they are great
for getting maximum coverage. I do have a problem with officals, who if you make a call in any portion of their primary they act as if you ran over their first born in the
parking lot. This is what causes the if I ain't asked I'm not doing anything or if its not in my primary it didn't happen.

I didn't say the C should change the call, but to give the T
information(what he saw). It would still be up to the T to make the call. If the T changed his call fine, If he didn't just as fine, but atleast we came together and communicated like a team.

rut,
(slot)depending on time of game and situation of game would depend on me coming to my partner. if this were the first quarter, or a 20 pt blowout-no i would not come to my partner because this is not a game saving situation. if this were late in the 4th quarter in a tight game, i would definately come to my partner and try to get the play correct. this is just my thought on the process because overturning my partner on a judgement(control of ball) in the early stages of the game, when everyone bought the play, seems to me that it would do more harm than good.

(trail)i would change my call without question if the slot came to me to add info and took full resposibility for the play, at any point in the game. if he came to me without confidence and said "well, i think it may not have been control and da da da." i would say no thankyou we are sticking with what i got. but if he cmae to me and said "tony, im 100% sure he did not have possession" i would not think twice about it.

this is what i strive for

This is why I asked this question.
 

It is great to see the vast opinions. Not to say that what I think is right, but I probably would stick with that. I feel more confrontable with that decision. But who knows what I would do in a real situation. This was a summer league and I was watching other officials work. In the heat of a contested battle, I might not do any of this. I just found the situation interesting and wanted to see what the brass thought about it. That is why we should be here. To see what others think. ;)

Peace

Tony, I agree with this 100%. In pre-game, I say, "Don't come to me and tell me what you think. If you know I kicked one, come and tell me and I'll change it. But we're not going to have a NFL discussion out there." I think your mindset is exactly right, Tony.

Chuck

Re: I agree.
 

If I'm C, I'll generally take a few steps toward T and give him the look that means, "I have help, if you need it." The number of steps and the look depends on whose call it really was (the relative location of us to the division line and the player's involved), the time and score of the game (see Crew's post), how much the coach complains, etc. I might get all the way there and just give the information (as on an OOB call).

If I'm T, I look to the C to see if he's coming over and giving me the look, based on much of the same criteria as above. I might look before I make the call (ball gets batted into backcourt from C's area; as T I can't tell for sure who batted the ball. I'm looking for C to tell me if I need to make a call.)

I agree with you 100% on everything you just said Dan. If your partner is real new or real weak, it still is better to leave it alone unless he asks for help.

To the contrary, I think it's more important to go to a new or inexperienced official and simply ask him what he saw. This gives him an opportunity to think, "Wait a minute. I think I screwed this up." You don't have to show him up or even make it appear that he's wrong. However, I'm not going to ask him about a judgment call, only a possibly rules misinterpretaion.

rule interpretation?
 

OK Tony, this is and was not about a rule interpretation, it was about a judgement call. The official understood the rule, he just saw something different. So if he understands the rule, you have a difference in judgement. He did not see what the C saw.

Peace

YU.P.
 

Tony,
With a newer official I will be more pro-active with an emetic call.
mick

Re: YU.P.
 

Emetic call?Some of my calls have been described as "enemetic".Same thing,different end!:D

Re: Re: YU.P.
 

Yeah JR, with my calls, I've made the sheets brown too many times. But this year, I'll be perfect.
MHSAA rules meetings tonight (80 miles) or tomorrow (50 miles).
mick

Re: Re: Re: YU.P.
 

Take the 50 mile one.Go fishing to-night.To-morrow night,you can still make the meeting AND get some fishing in with the time you save.
PS-watch out for wimmin with worms!!(blame Mr. Jenkins for that):D

Re: Re: Re: Re: YU.P.
 

JR,
Good plan.
Yeah, bob's was a gagger!
Talk about emeses.
mick

Was I replying to you? No.

Am I interested in your play? No.

I was replying to Ralph regarding his comments about a new official.

You need a hug.
 

Then do not reply to any posts to a thread that I start. Then I will not respond to your posts at all. But then again, if you want to act like a child, be my guest.

Tony, leeeetttt iiiitttttt ggggoooooooo. :rolleyes:

Peace

Why? Do you enjoy hugging men?
 

I will respond to any post that I want, whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Tony, leeeetttt iiiitttttt ggggoooooooo. :rolleyes:

I don't need to let anything go. You directed a post to me. That is the only reason you got a reply. Otherwise, I have join the group that no longer replies to your posts.

My name is Tony.
 

I don't neeeeed tooooo leeeeetttttt iiittttt gooooooo.........WA WA WA WA WA!!!!!

Not even worth a serious response.

Then why did you?
 

:rolleyes:

Have a great Football Season.

Peace