2-man: who's watching for BI and GT?

[rfp]

I've heard different opinions on this, interested in the consensus. In a 2-man game, who's responsible for watching for BI and GT? One school of thought says that it's the trail's all the way with the lead focused on the players under the basket. The other school of thought says that both trail AND lead should be watching for BI and GT since you've got a better chance to get it right.

So, in 2-man, when a shot is released, where is the lead looking?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by rfp

I've heard different opinions on this, interested in the consensus. In a 2-man game, who's responsible for watching for BI and GT? One school of thought says that it's the trail's all the way with the lead focused on the players under the basket. The other school of thought says that both trail AND lead should be watching for BI and GT since you've got a better chance to get it right.

So, in 2-man, when a shot is released, where is the lead looking?

When I am at lead I focus my attention below the rim. If someone end up on the floor below the BASKET I want to know how they got there.

[jTheUmp]

Worked a scrimmage on Saturday... there were a couple of seasoned vets and clinicians from our association there to give pointers to us (relatively speaking) newbies.

I had two separate clinicians call me out for looking at the shot as the lead official.

In the words of one clinician: "As the lead, you should never see the shot go in. Let the player's reactions tell you if there was a goal or not."

[Twinfan]

According to the FIBA manual for 2-man mechnics (FWIW), it's Trail all the way.
@rfp - on the shot, lead is looking for the battle underneath for rebounding position.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Worked a scrimmage on Saturday... there were a couple of seasoned vets and clinicians from our association there to give pointers to us (relatively speaking) newbies.

I had two separate clinicians call me out for looking at the shot as the lead official.

In the words of one clinician: "As the lead, you should never see the shot go in. Let the player's reactions tell you if there was a goal or not."

There are no absolutes imo. If you're the L on a quick break and your partner(s) are hung up in the backcourt, you'd damnwell better be ready imo to call the quick flicks'n'touches...especially the way that the kids are playing above the rim nowadays.

Half-court offenses..no. Let the outside guy get it.

Don't take anything for granted out there. Guaranteed it'll come back and bite your azz if you do so.

JMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There are no absolutes imo. If you're the L on a quick break and your partner(s) are hung up in the backcourt, you'd damnwell better be ready imo to call the quick flicks'n'touches...especially the way that the kids are playing above the rim nowadays.

Half-court offenses..no. Let the outside guy get it.

Don't take anything for granted out there. Guaranteed it'll come back and bite your azz if you do so.

JMO.

Agree. This is they way it should be done.

[Kelvin green]

Remember that trail has the perimeter and weak side rebounds. Trail has the best look as the ball goes up and is near the rim.

Lead (unless as mentioned on fast transition) just does not have the angle for the play. trail has the best view to see if ball will be short, if it is the cylinder or not, etc, Lead just has a crappy angle to see that stuff.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

There are no absolutes.

Oh yeah. How about this one: "Throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered
a try for goal. "

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Oh yeah. How about this one: "Throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered
a try for goal. "

Even JR would admit there's the possibility of it not being a try; but the odds of an official making that call and not becoming "that guy" are slim.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even JR would admit there's the possibility of it not being a try; but the odds of an official making that call and not becoming "that guy" are slim.

It IS true that it IS always considered a try for goal. It is also true that the rules don't really support that universally-made decision to always consider it as a try.

JR has admitted that there sureasheck is a possibility of it not being a try by rule(but NOT by common practice) to Billy constantly until JR screamed and threatened great bodily harm if Billy brought it up again.

And the "slim" estimate is too high also imo. Put it under "career ending maybe".

Just Billy being bitter.....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It is also true that the rules don't really support that universally-made decision to always consider it as a try.
JR has admitted that there sureasheck is a possibility of it not being a try by rule.

Bingo. Now let's all go over and pay 60 Seconds On Officiating a visit. I've got my pitchfork. Bring your shovel.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Bingo. Now let's all go over and pay 60 Seconds On Officiating a visit.

Bin der...dun dat......hopefully pissed 'em off at the same time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It IS true that it IS always considered a try for goal. It is also true that the rules don't really support that universally-made decision to always consider it as a try.

JR has admitted that there sureasheck is a possibility of it not being a try by rule(but NOT by common practice) to Billy constantly until JR screamed and threatened great bodily harm if Billy brought it up again.

And the "slim" estimate is too high also imo. Put it under "career ending maybe".

Just Billy being bitter.....

And if Eastshire is listening; this is the difference between a test answer and a practical answer.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Even JR would admit there's the possibility of it not being a try; but the odds of an official making that call and not becoming "that guy" are slim.

A1 throws a shoulder high pass to A2, which is deflected by B1.
A2 manages to touch the ball as it goes by him and continues along its new upward path. The ball strikes the backboard and rebounds into the backcourt where A3 is the first to touch it.

What's should the covering official do?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What's should the covering official do?

As much as I'd love to, let's not blame 60 Seconds On Officiating for a mix up involving this play. They stated, "Throwing the ball and hitting the backboard of the team in possession is always considered a try for goal." I wouldn't call a "touch" by A2 to be a "throw", so we don't have a "try", and we don't have a loss of team control, and what we do have is a backcourt violation.