First off, I will say that - imho - you did nothing wrong. Ultimately it is your P's call to live or die with...however, as you pointed out, sometimes we take the sh!t for something that our P screws up. So maybe a better way to handle it would have been to close on the players keeping your fist in the air so your L knows you've got something and the two of you can communicate a little. If he still decides to stick with his call, then he gets the heat because you gave him your information.

Again, I want to make it clear (because of our past history) that I am not saying you did anything wrong. Simply trying to put a different angle on it.

I agree. What's next? A stop on Oprah for some couch jumping!?!?!? Isn't this forum more condusive to the Judge Miles Lane show???:D

FWIW...This is my common complaint about officiating on the NCAA men's side. Everyone has such a "go it alone" mentality. I'm a man, I'll make the d#amn call. This is a very unrealistic approach to our profession. We are a team and if my partner can provide me some type of extra information that I may need to get a play right, you bet your @ss I'm going to take it. I have had quick conferences with partners on many occasions to confer over upgrading a foul. Sometimes we've upgraded other times they've informed me I'm overreacting, not one time have we ever caught flak for working together as a crew to get these plays right. Similarly I have given an intentional foul without asking a partner because I knew I was right. But, the hard nosed, "this is my effin call, I know what I saw, I don't need your help" is exactly what has officiating on the headlines every morning. This has nothing to do with who's stones are bigger than the others, it has to do with putting your ego in your bag when you leave the lockerroom and working to get the play correct, not proving you're tough enough to show everyone who's boss.

Fwiw just a coupla thoughts....

- the rule book couldn't be clearer, as you well know. Once your partner makes the call, neither you or the trail can change the call. If he doesn't want to change it, even after getting some input, that's it.
- whatinthehell was the trail doing watching a fast break like that? Who was watching the other 8 players in HIS primary?

Again this is jmo, but I don't know what more you could have done on that particular play. You did your job. It sureashell wasn't anything I'd ever worry about.

A common complaint by whom?:confused:

I've never heard that particular complaint from league assignors, evaluators, commissioners, etc. They all want to get every call right, but they also know that ultimately someone has to step up and make a final decision. That's why God made R's.

There's one heckuva big difference between "going it alone" and stepping up to make a definitive decision. There's nothing wrong with getting input, but you still have to ultimately make your own calls...and own 'em too.

Stopping to take a poll on every close call can mean one heckuva long game.:D

Not that you asked, but since you DID put it out there...:D
The first paragraph is a nice example of the two schools of thought. Do you go with what you feel is clearly an intentional? Or do you let your partner live and die with the call? This is, with all due respect to Jurassic (and yes I do have respect for him) where calling into questions someones 'nadatudinal constitution' is not the best way to evaluate what transpires. For an argument can be made that for NEVADA to have 'shown his' he should have come right in with an X b/c he clearly felt the foul was intentional. Conversely, you can say that he IS 'showing his" by letting his crew live or die with the call from the L, regardless of what his feelings are about the play.
I don't have problem with the way NEVADA handled the situation. I probably would have handled it differently, but so what. Does that make me right and him wrong or vice versa? Nope. And I certainly would respect his decision and explaination and let it go at that. (OK, MAYBE a quick barb here and there, but I would expect the same in return!) Based on the play description, the person I would want some more info from would be the "T". What if any additional information did they provide the calling official with other than "You can upgrade that"? If that is all they did then I have a question as to why even bother? THAT would be what makes a crew look bad and causes problems.

Evaluator "So what did you say at your little confab after that hard foul?"
T: " I was letting him know that he could upgrade the foul if he wanted to." Evaluator "Did you give him any reason that he might want to do that?"
T: "No, just wanted to let him know".
Evaluator (thinking to self) - He must be the guy who keeps asking if I want to "Super Size" my order for only .89 more! As if I didn't already know that!!)

At least NEVADA was operating according to his principles.

I very clearly said MY opinion ;)

You're going to the extreme here partner. We are not talking about conferencing on every call, that's ludicrous. How often does a potentially intentional/flagrant foul occur in a game? Once? Twice? Every 10 games? I think we'd agree its pretty uncommon and a quick "hey partner I think we may need to upgrade" can take less than five seconds and now everyone knows that we are working together, through everyone's egos to get a play right. In the end, yes, you must live and die with your own whistles, I'm not coming to rescue anyone. But, this is clearly a situation where good partnering can keep us out of alot of trouble.

No, I think we're both talking about the same thing. And we all probably agree on most things also, especially that this only happens on fairly rare occasions. The point that I was trying to make was that when it does happen, if you feel that your call was appropriate and correct, you have to go with your own judgment no matter the input given to you by your partner(s). That's not an ego thingy imo. That's simply belief in your own ability.

Well, look at that, we actually agree. ...sniff...sniff...I'm getting all verklempt...

As rocky, CLH and Judtech mentioned, it's certainly not something that happens all the time, and is not something that should be done on a regular basis. But I believe you brought up the violation situation, and this is similar in many regards. When the calling official makes an OOB call that is clearly missed, the other official can come over and give the calling official information, and it's up to the calling official to change the call, or keep it the same. No one overrules anyone else. It's the same with the breakaway foul situation - if the calling official has a common foul, while it's obvious to one or both of the partners that they missed an important piece of information that could "upgrade" the foul, then those partners should go give the calling official that information. It's still up to the calling official to keep or change their call. Of course, if the partners didn't see the whole play, then there's no additional information to give, and the calling official lives with their call.

So, how do I know when to go in and give information? I guess it's kinda like pornography, or obsenity, or Sarah Palin's (grand)son, I just know it when I see it. :)

And Lord knows you see enough of it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Hell, I became an Orlando Magic fan when I found out that they hired Ron Jeremy as their head coach.

Nevada, I'm only giving you my perspective from the NCAA-W side, which certainly may different than the philosophies of NFHS and NCAA-M. If I was the L in that play, and I found out after the fact you saw the hit to the face and didn't come in to tell me, I would be disappointed in you. In fact, in your play as described, since you had secondary coverage on that play I would've taken your information a little more seriously than from the T who was way behind the play.

Maybe because of the angle, the L didn't see the hit to the face, and giving him that info could've changed his mind on the call. Maybe he did see the hit, and still considered it not excessive enough to make it an intentional. Either way, going to him in that case could only help the situation, and not hurt it in any way. You were right in giving him the initial call, because it sounds like it was in his primary. It would've been wrong for you to come running in with the "X" because you possibly disagreed with the initial call. Also, if there was any reason you did not see the entire play, then you would be correct in not going over to offer any information. That should only happen of you 103% sure. ;)

But, if you did in fact see the entire play, and it seemed obvious to you that it should've been an intentional based on the excessive contact to the face, then you should've gone over and given that info to the L. It would still be his call to keep or change, but at least you've supplied him with all the info needed.

That's the gist of the criticism I've heard. People wanted me to come take the call because of what I felt the proper decision was.

My problem with doing that is that it makes my partner look really weak and the coaches then believe that he needs me to call the game for him. I've just ruined his credibility for the rest of the game.

Bottom line: Since the play was clearly not in my primary area, I didn't wish to undermine my partner. I know how I would feel if a play happened right in front of me and here came a guy running in from the other side of the court.

Thanks.

You know how hard it is to type with these hairy palms...especially when I'm blind, too? :eek:

If it's done a couple of times a game, and done in ordinary situations, then yes, it would indeed look like you're calling the game for your partner.

But if I made a call that seemed obvious to others that should be different, I would want my partner(s) coming to me to give me that info I somehow missed. I would be just as pissed that my partners let me make a dumb-a$$ call as I would be if they were consistently making calls in my primary.

Sure, it's a fine line. And if there's any doubt, don't do it. But if it's definite, tell me how anyone thinks less of a crew when they get together to get a rather obvious call right?

Since my comment which you quoted was not about getting together and discussing the call, but made in the context one official going ahead and making the harsher decision right away, I've altered your post to pose the pertinent question.

Remember in my case, the calling official actually was consulted by a partner and he chose to stick with his original decision. As it turned out the only way that an X was getting called on this particular play was for another official to have gone ahead and made the call right under this guy's nose. That's not something that I'm comfortable with doing.