Intentional or excessive intentional

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I agree, making another call over your partner's is not the right way to handle it. Also, is it possible the L didn't give the T's info much credibility, considering it was being given from a long way away, and you, being closer, were not coming in at all? That might've been part of his thought process. Perhaps if you had come in as well, asking if he had seen the contact on the face, and did he want to consider it an intentional, then perhaps that would've given the T's info a little more credence. Sure, there's always the chance the L would've stuck with the original call, and that's fine. But at least you would've given your info, rather than holding it back.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I don't think that is necessarily true. If the T comes in from way in the backcourt, I'm probably not going to listen to him/her either...however, if my C - who was right there on top of the play also - comes running in with their fist in the air and tells me "Partner, I really think we need to go Intentional on this one" immediately, then there is a good chance I'm going with the Int. No one is over ruling anyone, and none of us are promoting that idea...

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

And this is the beauty and difficulty of officiating. In this play, you firmly believe that it would look bad IF you went in. There are others (and you have apparently ran into them) who firmly belive you look bad if you do NOT go in. IMO, the key is to respect the decision either way.
Again, IMO, the key take away is not THIS play, but a larger issue. Simply put, it is something that should be addressed pregame, especially if you are working with a new crew. For instance, let's say Jurrassic, Nevada and I are working a game together. (I will take a moment to let the EMT's revive Jurassic) ...... During the pregame, regardless who the R is, I would bring into the conversation how we want to handle coverage, double whistles, T's, and 'anything funky' Knowing that their school of thought is different than mine SHOULD not be a problem, and I should be expected to adapt. Conversely, if NEVADA was working with myself and MM, then he should feel comfortable and/or not get offended (which I am thinking he wouldn't) if we handle those situation different then he 'normally' does. (On a side note, if there is ambivelance, the R rules!)
Again, to me, it is not about backbone, gonadal fortitude or machismo. It is having 3 people wearing polyesther (or a nice micro mesh) being on the same team, being situationally aware and respecting one another.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I agree, making another call over your partner's is not the right way to handle it. Also, is it possible the L didn't give the T's info much credibility, considering it was being given from a long way away, and you, being closer, were not coming in at all? That might've been part of his thought process. Perhaps if you had come in as well, asking if he had seen the contact on the face, and did he want to consider it an intentional, then perhaps that would've given the T's info a little more credence. Sure, there's always the chance the L would've stuck with the original call, and that's fine. But at least you would've given your info, rather than holding it back.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I don't think that is necessarily true. If the T comes in from way in the backcourt, I'm probably not going to listen to him/her either...however, if my C - who was right there on top of the play also - comes running in with their fist in the air and tells me "Partner, I really think we need to go Intentional on this one" immediately, then there is a good chance I'm going with the Int. No one is over ruling anyone, and none of us are promoting that idea...

I want to thank both of you for your thoughts. We seem to be in agreement that the C simply taking this call from the L is not the right thing to do, even if the C has it as intentional and the L does not. (Sidenote: Would we feel the same way if the C thought it was flagrant?)

Therefore, I feel good about not immediately making this call over in my partner's area. The last little thing which I have been pondering is should I also have gone over and attempted to persuade the L to go with the X along with the T. Let me state exactly what I was thinking on the court and you guys can comment, but first allow me to write that I have all of the respect in the world for the official who was the T on this play. He is a former D1 mens official and I have worked with him on a couple of occasions with nothing but the best results. So despite his positioning deep in the backcourt (perhaps FT line extended), he viewed the foul with similar thoughts to mine. [And yes, probably at the expense of not closely watching the other eight players back there with him.]

Now right as the foul occurs, I think, "Oh, that was excessive." Then I progressed to other thoughts such as: Does he have it? Ok, he's got the call, but I don't know if he is calling intentional or not because he is from somewhere else and I am not familiar with his mechanics. Perhaps he doesn't know to use the crossed arms signal or maybe they don't do that in his area. I'll make sure that the players are okay and that nothing further happens. [They get up without incident.] Now just as I consider going over and asking the L if he has that as intentional, I see the T come down to speak with him as he is heading to table and they meet at the 28 foot line, so I think, "Okay, [name deleted] has this." I can hear the entire conversation while standing on the other side of the FT lane and keeping an eye on the players. He says almost exactly what I would have said, so I stay where I am. Once I understood that the L was not going to upgrade to intentional, I didn't really think that I could lend any more to the situation than the T already did. At that point I wasn't going to chase him to the table and further hold up the proceedings. I just let it go and moved on. He had already conversed with one of his partners. It never occurred to me that he wouldn't accept information from this guy because he was the T at the time, but would from me because I happened to be the C. I seriously doubt that crossed the mind of the calling official either.
I view the T as a very strong official and felt that the message had been delivered loud and clear.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that if all three of us had gotten together that while it would have been obvious to everyone in the building that the two of us were attempting to alter his decision, and from that perspective I doubt that would have been a good thing for the rest of the game, it is entirely possible that the two of us combined would have been successful in getting the final decision to be an intentional foul.

So the big question is would it have been worth it from a credibility standpoint as well as risking this partner going into the tank for the remainder of the game just to reward the shooting team with one more possession?

While I don't believe that the absolute correct call was made on this particular play, perhaps a few good calls later in the game were made by this individual solely because he had the confidence that his partners will willing to support him and trust him to make calls in his area. In the end, that may have had more impact upon the game.

[Raymond]

It's a great situation to pre-game so everyone is on the same sheet of music.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I want to thank both of you for your thoughts. We seem to be in agreement that the C simply taking this call from the L is not the right thing to do, even if the C has it as intentional and the L does not. (Sidenote: Would we feel the same way if the C thought it was flagrant?)

Therefore, I feel good about not immediately making this call over in my partner's area. The last little thing which I have been pondering is should I also have gone over and attempted to persuade the L to go with the X along with the T. Let me state exactly what I was thinking on the court and you guys can comment, but first allow me to write that I have all of the respect in the world for the official who was the T on this play. He is a former D1 mens official and I have worked with him on a couple of occasions with nothing but the best results. So despite his positioning deep in the backcourt (perhaps FT line extended), he viewed the foul with similar thoughts to mine. [And yes, probably at the expense of not closely watching the other eight players back there with him.]

Now right as the foul occurs, I think, "Oh, that was excessive." Then I progressed to other thoughts such as: Does he have it? Ok, he's got the call, but I don't know if he is calling intentional or not because he is from somewhere else and I am not familiar with his mechanics. Perhaps he doesn't know to use the crossed arms signal or maybe they don't do that in his area. I'll make sure that the players are okay and that nothing further happens. [They get up without incident.] Now just as I consider going over and asking the L if he has that as intentional, I see the T come down to speak with him as he is heading to table and they meet at the 28 foot line, so I think, "Okay, [name deleted] has this." I can hear the entire conversation while standing on the other side of the FT lane and keeping an eye on the players. He says almost exactly what I would have said, so I stay where I am. Once I understood that the L was not going to upgrade to intentional, I didn't really think that I could lend any more to the situation than the T already did. At that point I wasn't going to chase him to the table and further hold up the proceedings. I just let it go and moved on. He had already conversed with one of his partners. It never occurred to me that he wouldn't accept information from this guy because he was the T at the time, but would from me because I happened to be the C. I seriously doubt that crossed the mind of the calling official either.
I viewed the T as a very strong official and felt that the message had been delivered loud and clear.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that if all three of us had gotten together that while it would have been obvious to everyone in the building that the two of us were attempting to alter his decision, and from that perspective I doubt that would have been a good thing for the rest of the game, it is entirely possible that the two of us combined would have been successful in getting the final decision to be an intentional foul.

So the big question is would it have been worth it from a credibility standpoint as well as risking this partner going into the tank for the remainder of the game just to reward the shooting team with one more possession?

While I don't believe that the absolute correct call was made on this particular play, perhaps a few good calls later in the game were made by this individual solely because he had the confidence that his partners will willing to support him and trust him to make calls in his area. In the end, that may have had more impact upon the game.

The next time you post something this long, could you include pictures? It is much easier for me that way. The books I usually read have lots of them. Sometimes there are even pages for me to use my crayons!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's a great situation to pre-game so everyone is on the same sheet of music.

How exactly do you pregame a hard foul obviously within the PCA of one official? Do you say, if I don't call it intentional go ahead and do so? Do you say, we are all going to come together after a hard foul and talk? JR certainly wouldn't be happy to pregame that.

I'm not sure that the pregame is the answer to this one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Logical thinking imo.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How exactly do you pregame a hard foul obviously within the PCA of one official? Do you say, if I don't call it intentional go ahead and do so? Do you say, we are all going to come together after a hard foul and talk? JR certainly wouldn't be happy to pregame that.

I'm not sure that the pregame is the answer to this one.

You can pregame going to each other if some info obviously needs to be shared. What you can't do is pregame that any other official can take over your call if he thinks you blew it, no matter what you thought. That's not only patently ridiculous but it's specifically not allowed rules-wise.

Once the calling official said that he was gonna stick with a normal shooting foul over the intentional, the conversation is over.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How exactly do you pregame a hard foul obviously within the PCA of one official? Do you say, if I don't call it intentional go ahead and do so? Do you say, we are all going to come together after a hard foul and talk? JR certainly wouldn't be happy to pregame that.

I'm not sure that the pregame is the answer to this one.

Great question, here is an answer:
Blah blah bah, pregame, blah starters, blah, hair control device, blah, sock logo's.....How do you guys/gals want to handle hard fouls? Here are my thoughts. If we have a double whistle, and one of us thinks it should be a flagrant or intentional, then lets get together and exchange info and have the PCA official make the call. If you don't want to do that we can just have the PCA handle it on their own. What are you all most comfortable with?
Easy peezy, lemon cheezy

[rockyroad]

Nevada, I will say again that I do not think you did anything wrong. And anyone who is giving you grief about this situation is either a friend of the L in your OP, or is just out to get you for some reason.

You can't go in AFTER your third had a conversation with the L. That would look bad all around and would possibly piss off the L and/or cause him to disappear as you said.

My only thought is what I posted before: If you had IMMEDIATELY come across with fist raised and said something about Intentional right then and there, maybe he would have gone with it. Maybe not, but at least your critics would be silenced (as they should be anyway for crying out loud).

It's one of those situations where some people (like deranged, psychotic assignors) blame you for something that your P screwed up because "You should be able to take care of business in your games". Not that that ever happened to me.

Water under the bridge.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How exactly do you pregame a hard foul obviously within the PCA of one official? Do you say, if I don't call it intentional go ahead and do so? Do you say, we are all going to come together after a hard foul and talk? JR certainly wouldn't be happy to pregame that.

I'm not sure that the pregame is the answer to this one.

You pregame whether or not you would want the secondary official coming in with information or to just let the primary go with what he has. And you pre-game it using the exact same play you had from the championship game.

I have colleagues who want that info on the court, not in the lockerroom afterwards. I have others who want to live and die on their own in that situation.

Let's change your play and say B1 has purposely grabbed a handful of A1's jersey from the back with one hand while swatting at the ball and hacking A1 with the other. Do you MYOB?

That question is mostly rhetorical. My point is, you talk about plays like this, find out what your partners' philosophies are and have a general consensus on how you handle such situations instead of having the 'C' doing one thing and the 'T' something totally different.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You pregame whether or not you would want the secondary official coming in with information or to just let the primary go with what he has. And you pre-game it using the exact same play you had from the championship game.

My difficultly with saying this is what "information" is the secondary official offering besides an opinion that he believes that contact was intentional/flagrant?
I had a good look at my partner and believed that he wasn't screened out and that he had a great view of the play. I don't believe that I could have offered him any information which he didn't already possess (save proper rules knowledge). All that I had was a different opinion and I don't think that it is my job to override his judgment on the court.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Let's change your play and say B1 has purposely grabbed a handful of A1's jersey from the back with one hand while swatting at the ball and hacking A1 with the other. Do you MYOB?

That would have very much altered my actions on the play. I would now have been believing that my partner did not observe this illegal action and that it would fall to me to actually call it. Not only would I have put a whistle on the play, but I would have likely gone straight to the X. I then would have done the courtesy of going to him and letting him know that I have an intentional jersey grab from behind which there was no way that he could possibly see, and then I would have been the one to take the call to the table. I wouldn't have been offering to let him take the call for something which he didn't/couldn't see. I don't believe that would put him in a good position if a coach asked for an explanation.

[Pete]

I appreciate all the info. The c following the play blew his whistle and he said hard foul. I said did he hit his head. He said no. I said just foul. After the game and when questioned. Neither one of us knew the NCAA M rule or signal. We learned and I have discussed this summer and had good understanding with my partners. In computer and will pregame always.