Working with a Veteran
 

My first game will be coming up in the next 2 weeks.

Do most Veterans like working with Rookies or find it a PITA?

Do they offer advice and make corrections on my erros during time outs and half time?

All veterans are different. None of us are exactly the same.

Peace

True. Same is true for rookies. Some are more receptive to advice than others.

Have you worked any scrimmages? Had any floor training? Attended any rule clinics?

Depends on what kind of rookie it is. If it's one who hustles and shows a willingness to learn and get better, I find it to be fun. If it's the smart-a$$ know it all rookie, then it's a nightmare.

I will usually offer advice and encouragement whenever I can or I think it's needed. It also depends on how receptive the person is going to be to said advice. Remember, you don't want to be a 'Yabut". If a veteran offers you advice or criticism, LISTEN to it and say thank you. You can decide later on your own if it was worth anything or not.

Most of all, just remember to hustle when you're out there and don't call anything you can't explain. You'll be fine :)

Concur
 

If a new (or rookie) partner WANTS to get better and is there to learn and improve their game, this can be a great experience for both of you.

Hustle, pay attention, listen, and learn - if they can do that, I'm good to go.

Just remember though, not everyone is a good teacher and/or mentor - just like not everyone is a good student. Sometimes things just don't click. It's all part of growing and gaining experience.

Good luck.

Remembering my first year ...
 

I can only say that most of the men and women I worked with during my first year were great about my lack of experience.

For my part, I always let them know it was indeed my first year. Most offered a few words of advice, some asked if I wanted advice at the end of a game before it was offered. Most of the feedback I received had little to do with what I called or didn't call, it was more about game management or working the arc more aggressively or ways in which I could have helped my partner with a clearer mechanic or communication.

Enjoy your first year. After each game (or set of games) I went home and thought about what I saw, what I called, my mechanics etc and read the casebook to make sure I was handling things correctly. Not a bad thing to do in my opinion.

Every veteran has something to teach you: a game management tip, procedures for your area that aren't in the book, something to improve your mechanics. Try to find it.

Every veteran has a piece of advice you should ignore: a rule that changed 10 years ago, a mechanic that only he can make work, personal information about that coach. Watch out for it.

I'm aware that this doesn't answer your question. Some vets resent rookies, probably because subconsciously they realize that rookies will eventually take their games. Some love rookies, as the people with whom they can share their accumulated wisdom. It won't take you long to figure out which are which.

Last year was my first. I worked ~20 games and had about 15 veteran partners. ( I actually had 1 very competitive JV Boys where we had 2 rookies - THAT was a learning experience.)

The vets were great for the most part. Some offered very concrete advice, even to the point of how to point to the floor to indicate throw-in spot. Others were more general in their advice.

I only had 1 vet that was just not my cup of tea.

Listen, listen, listen. Hustle, hustle, hustle. Have an attitude that you want to learn and you'll be fine.

My experience
 

I remeber my first three or four games (over ten years ago)...

In one game, I worked with a veteran who only praised me for everything I did and really didn't criticize me at all.

In the next two I worked with a veteran who said next to nothing, other than to tell me how we were going to "work these games" (i.e, no switches, "let them play", etc.)

Finally, I worked with a respected veteran, who I felt at the time, was really harsh in correcting me. (Actually he was correcting a lot of the bad habits I had picked up in games 2 and 3). His criticism was all warranted and, over time, made me a better official. But at the time I HATED IT!

After these four games, I looked to work more with the first official, and less with the other two. As time went on, I realized that I was better off with the third, who I now consider a great friend (I still take his advice) and I have come to realize that neither of the other two officials are very well respected and are still working the level of play they were working ten years ago.

I'm a second-year basketball guy myself...

Last year, whenever I was working a game with a veteran official, I'd always say something like this to them before the game: "I know you're not going to be looking at me all that much, but if/when you see something I'm not doing right or that I could improve on, please let me know so I can get better". In fact, I plan on using this line again again this year.

I've had a couple of partners who wanted to do the "no switching because I'm lazy" routine, which I normally countered with "Do you mind if we keep up the normal rotation? I still struggle with when to rotate, and that's something I really was hoping to work on today."

You'll also find that you'll quickly figure out which guys have ten years' experience, and which guys have one years' experience ten times. Make sure you take to heart the advice/pointers of the former, and forget/ignore most of the advice of the later.

Another good way to get vets to warm up to you... Ask them for advice about how you should have handled a situation that happened in one of your prior games.

Yep. Or should I say +1? :D

Peace

Good post overall, but please note that switching is different from rotating. We switch when we change position after a foul (in 2-whistle and 3-whistle). We rotate during play in 3-whistle to put 2 officials ballside.

I was not aware of that, but I've only worked 2-whistle games (the only 3-whistle around here is in a couple of varsity conferences... most have gone back to 2-whistle to "save money").

Thanks for setting me straight.

Switching is dead ball movement.

Rotating is a live ball movement.

Peace

When I work with a rookie, I just want the rookie to do his/her job and not try to "prove" that s/he belongs on the court. Call your area and be a good partner.

I remember my first year, as it was a great one. I learned a lot from the individuals I worked with and were great to help me to get where I am at today.

Everyone here has offered some great advice on how to work with a veteran. My advice would be come ready to officiate and learn but also have fun with it. This can be a fun profession if you work with the right people and have fun with it. Always be willing to learn and also never be afraid to ask questions to fellow officials you might get a different response per things, but you take some and you leave some of the advice.

Have a great season!

JB

A question to the veterans from this intermediate:

You're the lead in a two man crew, working with a rookie. The rook at trail doesn't call a clear backcourt violation. Do you make that call?

No.

a. I wouldn't see it.
b. Not my call.
c. What kind of example am I setting if I get that? Somebody will always bail you out? Always watch the ball? I can do this game by myself?

No, we talk about it later to make sure he's got the rule, and if he gets chewed on a little, that will reinforce the lesson.

Heckeeeeeeno!!!!!

Sometimes we have to learn rules by our mistakes. And like said before, not sure I would have seen it.

Peace

Ask for advice. Then stay for the 2nd game and watch it put into practice. Ask the varsity crew if you can sit in on halftime. If asked if you are seeing anything, do not critique, it is usually a rhetorical question. If you want to learn, most veterans are willing to help. But, you must ask. And if you have those guys following you later in the season, you would do well to have put into practice any good advice you have been given. I have been on both sides. I only offer advice if asked and usually only one thing per game. That advice usually is advice I had received at one point in time.

How about this one I had last year. Working with a rookie in the end of a close game, and the rookie at trail clearly doesn't understand 10 second backcourt and 5 second closely guarded count. The defense is pressing on every possession and the coach has asked for a count. Do you try to cover for the rookie?

Here's what I did. I had already talked to my partner, so I forced a switch to make sure I had the ten second count in back court. There was not much else I could do, and luckily the coach knew I had a rookie and was understanding. It did mean that I had the same end of the floor for the last several minutes of the game.

That seems like a good approach to a tough situation.

The only thing I've ever done close to this was last year. I'm lead on an FC endline throw-in. A1 launches ball into backcourt, where A2 chases it down and retrieves it below the FT line extended along the BC sideline. T blows her whistle for a BC violation.

I hit my whistle to do a quick conference, asked her what she had. She told me no one from the defense had hit it, and I told her the rule (quickly), and she agreed to reverse the call. No one said a word.

Only if the ball was thrown from my primary, went clearly out of reach of everyone else, and was clearly recovered in the backcourt by team A.

In fact, I'd even blow that one with any partner.

With the ball coming from my primary, the trail probably has no idea if the throw was tipped or not since they wouldn't be looking there. There are some calls that take more information than your parnter might have.

(Yes, this happened to me once...and I didn't call it and it made us both look bad).

Just because the Instructional Chair is super anal and literal, in Southern Nevada we have replaced hustle with "get in position to see the play." Many officials will hustle to look like they are doing something and/or will hustle themselves right out of position to see plays.

Good responses thus far.

What if your rookie trail and you witnessed the following: A-1 loses control in the frontcourt. B-2 taps the ball into the air over the backcourt. A-1 runs to the backcourt and touches the ball before it hits the floor. Your partner offers no whistle, thinking no violation took place.

Now, mbyron and JRut offer solid reasons why they'd leave such things alone, and I doubt this scenario would change their minds. Cam also offers a good reason to blow the whistle.

Anyone else? Does this new scenario change things?

No violation did take place.

Camron stated he's only calling this if the ball came from his primary. The odds of your scenario happening in the lead's primary are slim to none.

Secondly (I know, there was not "first of all"), your scenario is not a violation by rule; in spite of the interp.

Correct, and thankfully so.

I just came from our IAABO board's fall conference, and one of the things mentioned was a change in interpretation on this very play. Long story short, it's not a violation. A few of us at the meeting expressed pleasure about the change, as last year's didn't make sense to us.

Is this "change" published anywhere? Or does it just apply to your specific area?

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations ...
 

I'm so confused. Are we talking about this:

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

I was wondering the same thing.

Going Rogue ...
 

It may just apply to IAABO. It may not apply to non IAABO associations, of which there are many. Sometimes we, in IAABO, can be real mavericks. At the next IAABO spring meeting, we'll be able to see Russia from our hotel.

Interesting. IAABO is recognized as the state governing body in a few states. As such, they can't make rules, but they can decide what rules they might comply with or modify. I'm wondering whether they consider this a non-compliance or a modification. Or maybe just as a completely wrong interpretation that was never backed by rule and should never had been issued in the first place, as most of us viewed it.

So it's going to be held at Tina Fey's house? Or in Moscow?

If IAABO alone issued it, it most definitely will not apply to any non-IAABO associations, areas, states, etc.

What we need to know is whether IAABO issued it or got it from a legitimate NFHS source.

It's not exactly our governing body, but all our certifications are through IAABO, and we follow IAABO mechanics, and our rule book/case book has a big IAABO stamp on it.

Since I never seem to be able to remember this particular interp on the court, the idea of IAABO reversing it within their jurisdiction is intriguing, but nothing more.

IAABO is recognized as the governing body in some states in the north-east. It was the the governing body in Georgia for a cup of coffee too iirc, but they got tossed there 2/3 years ago. What is intriguing is whether they're following the lead from the FED and it'll come down to the rest of us, or whether they issued the ruling on their own and it only applies to IAABO jurisdictions.

I know just the person to ask. :)

Return to Sender, Address Unknown, No Such Number, No Such Zone ...
 

ChuckElias doesn't live here anymore.

But he reads here a lot.

It's A Miracle ...
 

If this was Facebook, I would say hit the "like" button. :D

Peace

Pretty close, BillyMac. The difference between this play you cite and the one I understand is that there's no bounce in the frontcourt before it goes into the backcourt. In other words, A-1's frontcourt pass to A-2 is tapped into the air by B-3, and it's caught in the air by A-1, now standing in the backcourt.

Our board's interpreter told us that the intepretation changed during last season. (How often does THAT happen?) This is a legal play, as B-3 caused the ball to go backcourt, not A-1.

I don't have any documentation, guys. I'm simply going on what I was told.

I think according to the NFHS "interpretation" this is still a backcourt violation...not that it's correct according to that rule book.

Methinks that unless there was something definitive issued from the NFHS last year that none of us are aware of, your board's interpreter was wrong in making the assumption that the interpretation had changed(unfortunately). We all pretty-much agree that it should be a legal play by rule, but until the FED withdraws that stoopid interpretation, we're either still stuck with it or are ignoring it.

Your board's interpreter seems to be the only one who was given this change.

If, the ball in flight has the same relationship to frontcourt and backcourt, or inbounds or out of bounds, as when it last touched a person or the floor [#9 Basketball Rules Fundamentals], and B-3 touched the ball in the frontcourt and it has not hit the floor in the backcourt before A-1 touches it in the backcourt, then A-1 has caused it to gain backcourt status. I understand that it seems to be a bad ruling with respect to what has happened. But, by looking at the Rules Fundamentals, it is the correct one.

The problem is, "causing the ball to gain backcourt status" is not the violation. The violation is for having players on the team in control be the last to touch before it gained BC status and the first to touch after it gained BC status. The fundamental isn't applicable to this situation.

The situation that illustrates the absurdity of the ruling:
A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg.

It is a matter of semantics, snaqs. No change in team control occurred with Bs touch. It is absurd that a bounce in the BC makes the difference in there being a violation or no violation. And B's touch did not result in the ball gaining BC status. A's touch while standing in the BC did. A similar type of play is when during a 10 second count, A1 passes the ball to the FC, but before it is touched in the FC, the 10 seconds are reached and a violation occurs. Both plays can be determined under the rule fundamental.

And with the string of recent posts....
 

....this thread has officially been hijacked.

Do you think my play is a violation? The fact is, in both plays, the last to touch "before" the ball gained BC status was B. For a violation, A has to be the last to touch before it gained BC status. Causing it to gain BC status is not where the violation is.

When A touched it, it gained BC status. The end result would be the same as if B1 touched it in the FC, then A4 touched it, then it hit the floor in BC where A1 was the first to touch it. In the initial play, the team never lost team control and A violated by catching the ball in the air in BC before the ball gained BC status. B's touch is not germane to the case play because the ball did not hit the floor in BC. And there was no change in team control.

So, what happens next? A1 has player control and a 10 second count is still continuing. Team control has not changed. And they have not caused the ball to gain FC status. I don't like the ruling in the play being discussed, but I cannot set the rule aside because I do not like it.

No, he didn't violate, because team A was not the last to touch the ball before it gained BC status. B1 was. That's the rule. In your second scenario, A4 was the last to touch it before it gained BC status; making it a violation.

In the interp play, B1's touch is the last event prior to the ball gaining BC status.

What happens next? By rule, you have a new 10 second count. The ball has not continuously been in the backcourt, since B1's touch gives it FC status. Since team control never ends, the BC count will start as soon as the ball regains BC status. This play is fundamentally identical to the interp.

Team A doesn't have to cause the ball to gain FC status, that's not part of the rule any more than causing it to gain BC status is part of it.

We can't add "cause" to the rule in order to make the interp correct.

2007-08 NFHS Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Argue with this guy. :D

We've been arguing with him since the interp came out. :D The interp specifically mentions "caused the ball to have backcourt status," which is definitively not in the rule. Again, this interp leads one to have to call a violation in the play I presented earlier; which is absurd.

It also does not fit the rule.

"A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team
control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by
the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt."

They're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of what causes the ball to have BC status. That seems OK to me.

I even think that the "simultaneity" objection lacks merit: if event A causes event B, then A has to happen before B. When a player's touch causes the ball to have BC status, the player was the last to touch before the ball "went" to the BC.

[Hint: I'm playing devil's advocate here. Can you locate the fallacy?]

"Cause" isn't my biggest problem; but it's not in the rule.

The fallacy in your point? Use of the word "cause" where it's not warranted. A ball gains backcourt status at a precise moment in time. A separate event cannot happen both before and after that moment.

So, let me ask you, would you call a violation on the play I submitted?

You mean this play:
"A1 dribbling in the BC, near the division line. B1 defending, standing completely in the FC, reaches and slaps the ball off of A1's leg."

No, I wouldn't. I don't think A1 touched it before it gained BC status.

But I'm not sure your reasoning stands up: if we're interpreting "went to the backcourt" in terms of causation, then the interp implies two events -- cause and effect -- which cannot be simultaneous.

True, 9-9-1 doesn't employ the word "cause," but what else could "went to the backcourt" mean?

[Still advocating...]

When does the ball gain BC status? When it touches the floor or any person that is on the floor in BC? Who is the first to touch it? Both things occur simultaneously. The ball gained BC status when touched by A1 who was standing in the BC. And A1 was the first to touch the ball once it has gained BC status. B may have been the last to touch it, but it did not change team control when he touched it.

4-4-3 A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player on the court. [In this case, B was in the FC and touched it].
4-4-4 A ball which touches a player or an official is the same as the ball touching the floor at that individual's location. [In this case, A's touch of the ball in BC gave it BC status. Not B's touch in the FC. A was the first to touch it after it was given BC status by virtue of A's touch. They occurred at the SAME TIME.]

By your reasoning regarding causation, he must have, as he causes the ball to gain BC status when it hits his leg. Fundamentally, it's identical to the interp.

What else could it mean? Exactly what it says; perhaps worded slightly differently, "gained backcourt status."

And B was the last to touch the ball before it went into the backcourt.

OK, I'll come clean: the interp is flawed in supposing that the touching by A and the ball gaining backcourt status are distinct events. If they were distinct, it might make sense to say that the former causes the latter. But they're not.

Without getting too metaphysical, the touch by A does not cause the ball to go to the BC, it constitutes the ball gaining BC status. The touch just is the ball gaining BC status. I think this is the idea people are reaching for when they say that the "two" events are "simultaneous." I would like to tell the committee that you don't have two events here at all: just one event, with two ways of describing it. One description is about touching, and one is about the status of the ball.

That's why "cause" is inappropriate for the interpretation of "went to the backcourt." Without two distinct events, you cannot possibly have cause and effect.

And so when A is in the BC and touches the ball, A is NOT the last to touch before the ball went to the BC. No violation.

A1 releases the ball on a throw-in attempt. B-1 a. deflects ball to A1 who catches it or touches the ball while still standing out of bounds. b. touches the ball while standing out of bounds after B-1's deflected ball hits the floor. c. deflected ball hits the official who is standing out of bounds and then is touched by A1 who is still standing out of bounds.

When is the ball out of bounds? Whose violation is it? Will this horse ever live again?

Different rules, as the OOB violation is for "causing the ball to go OOB." That's not the case for backcourt.

Not if I can help it.

Not really. If A lets the ball hit the floor, there is no violation. Same in the BC case play.

Mickey Mantle took Billy Martin to a friend of his in TX to do some deer hunting. Billy had always managed to put Mickey on the wrong end of practical jokes. Mickey told Billy to wait outside while he went in to ask permission. Mickey's friend said he could hunt under one condition. He had a mule that needed to be put down and he didn't have the heart to do it. If Mickey would do it, he could hunt.

He went outside and without saying a word, plucked out his rifle and headed to the pen. "What'd he say?", asked Billy. "He said 'no'", Mickey replied and he proceeded to put down the mule with a single shot. Mickey then hears "Blam! Blam! Blam!" and turns around to hear Billy exclaim, "Let's get out of here, I just got 3 of his horses!"

Also....

If causing the ball to have BC status were the violation, we'd blow the whistle the moment the ball bounces in the backcourt even if it was not yet touched. But it is not and we don't.

The difference lies only with the reasoning of the interp; a faulty reliance on the term "cause," which is not in the rule.

Causing the ball to gain BC status is not a violation.

Correct...but irrelevant.
Correct.
Correct...but irrelevant.
Correct...but irrelevant.

The real question is who was the last to touch the ball BEFORE it gained BC status. If it was A, violation. If it was B, no violation.

Irrelevant...loss of team control is not necessary for A to retrieve the ball in the BC.
Agree...and that is why it should NOT be a violation when B was the last to touch the ball before the ball goes into the backcourt (whether it bounces or not before A touches.
Agree.
It doesn't have to be touched in the frontcourt to end the count...the count can also end if the ball merely bounces in the FC.

However, this is also not relevent. The 10 second count is about the status of the ball...nothing more. The BC violation is about who touched the ball before and after the change in status of the ball from FC to BC.

Who's the guy in white riding Chuck?

Or is He riding some other donkey?

You don't remember him? He's the one who spit in the dirt and put the mud in your eye to help you see.

I see.

Exactly. Then he told you to shut up.

Somehow that bit got lost from the KJV. :confused:

Oh, he worded it much more politely, "go and tell no one."

"be still"?

Sorry, I was mixing miracles.

Careful: you might get smote.

It was right before He tied his azz to a tree and walked across the desert.

Stoopid software won't even let you quote the Bible.

I'm covered. I've got the special insurance.