It's ironic that you get your feelings hurt more than just about anyone on this site, but you never miss a chance to be an a$$clown either.

I agree with everything you've said.

The point I was trying to make is that one way to cure yourself of ball watching is to think about what it communicates to your partner, to coaches and others who are observing your behavior. Regardless of your intent in ball watching, one of the things you're communicating to others (whether you really mean it or not) is that you don't trust your partner to get the call right, and that you're not really concerned with off-ball action going on in your area.

When I learned that, I started making not ball-watching a priority in my mechanics. That's all.

LOL My feelings aren't hurt at all. But that did make me laugh.

Some Possible Strategies
 

Since you inquired about specific "tricks" or "tips", rather than philosophy and "zen and the art of officiating", how might these help your quest?

A. Make it a point to review a printed sheet of the primary areas of coverage for either two or three-person prior to every game. What the mind sees gradually becomes integrated into a real-to-life setting. I've got a sheet with each official's primary shaded in a different color that I bring out every single pregame conference, regardless the veteran or rookie status of the personnel on the crew for the night.

B. Each time down the court, just before or perhaps right when the ball settles, manually bring your arms up just a little bit and actually point to and express to yourself the boundaries of your primary. What you visualize ahead of time gradually becomes what you prioritize when the action starts happening. Doing it every time early on makes considering your primary area more automatic as time goes on.

C. Get yourself a shock collar and give the remote control to a trusted observer sitting in the stands. Instruct him/her that every time your focus wanders from your primary.....ZAP!!! :eek: Should iron out any ball watching problems you have after two or three sets of undergarments.

Wrong.

This is one of the most common things I have to try to teach new officials to not do in camp or in evaluations. They usually do not know any better or have the experience to not do this, so they do it. It does not mean they are not trusting their partner when they do not know why this is a problem yet.

Peace

I think it is a combination of things.

Many are hung up on: " If I see it, I'm gonna call it, no matter what."

This provokes a couple of things.

1. You shouldn't have seen it in the first place, because you shouldn't have been looking over there.

2. If you're 50 feet away, and the play is right in front of your partner, you do need to trust him. "I think that was a foul, but if he can't call it from there, no way can I call it from here."

Even if you're the L with all ten players running motion above the FT line extended & there was an obvious foul that your partner no-called because they didnt position adjust?

Also, isnt the object of the basketball officiating to referee your primary matchup(s) while seeing as many of the other players as possible?

I hate discussing plays when partners get all defensive about their incorrect no-calls & resort to "you shouldn't have been looking there in the first place."

IMO, the game has changed & so has refereeing, the let em live & die mentality on obvious fouls is of the past. Get the play right with a proper cadence whistle is where todays game is at.

Not directed to you, but I find that most officials with that mindset dont attend camps to get the updated information anymore nor are they big on effectively breaking down game film.

I strongly disagree. As several others have pointed out, not trusting your partner has nothing to do with it - it's an issue of training and experience.


This is the only part of your statement that I agree with. As was pointed out earlier, the focus of the action is usually where the ball is and it's a natural tendency to look there. A good official learns to focus on their coverage area away from the ball, and that takes time and experience.

50 feet away is beyond the division line on most high school courts if you are the lead, and if something happens right in front of my partner, unless it's a non-basketball play, I can see no reason to go get it.

If all players are above the free throw line then you better be officiating hard in secondary coverage areas to help your partner who should be officiating on-ball.

It's not an either-or scenario. Watch what needs to be watched based on the situation at hand. Especially in a two-man game there is rarely a time when both sets of eyes should be on the same matchup.

I don't think that is it at all.

I think it is from many, many years as a spectator/player where most people just watch the ball. It is a habit from pre-referring days. Most people that watch the game like to know what the ball handler is doing and focus on them. For some people that join the officiating ranks, that is a hard habit to break. I think the last thing it is about is trust.

In fact, 50 is in the backcourt on ALL courts.....NBA/NCAA courts are only 94' long....division line at 47'.

And if all 10 players are that far out and beyond, the lead better not be below the endline....and 50 feet away.

Agreed....IF all 10 players are that far away, you still have 6-7 of them that you should be covering. Only 3-4 of them are on-ball....trail has those, the lead gets the rest no matter how far away they are.

On North-South plays yes, but the court is 50 feet wide too.
Lets just say your C has been known to follow the flight of the pretty ball on 3 point attempts. You knowing this fact at the T, so you keep an eye on his airborne shooters. *BOOM* Crash with 2 players lying on the floor, you see the shooked look in his eyes as they shift from watching the ball rip the twine to the players lying beside him. He then gives the "get-up" signal as many of the posers who miss that call do. I'm putting a whistle on it!!

I thought thats what I already said...

Having 2 man -errr- 2 person crews is a crime & should be treated as such!
With the speed & skill of todays players having that 3rd is very crucial as many plays require 2 officials to be on the play. Yeah team officiating... to some it may be a new concept. But its true!!

Tell me about it. I'm in my third year in a state where 90% of my officiating is 2-man (only the largest two classes get 3-man crews here) after three years in a state where everything was 3-man and I'm still adjusting.

It's frustrating to know there are plays in a 2-man game that, no matter how hard and well you and your partner are working, are going to be impossible to get with 100% certainty. There are always going to be a few of these, but they're common place in a 2-man game.

Hate it.

Yeah, we had a major big school league go from 3 to 2 this season.

I've begun working on replies for when they start b1tching about this isnt being called & we missed that.

"With the speed & skill level of the players in _______ this game really deserves 3 officials on it."

"You're absolutely right & you guys voted for this floor coverage!"

Level headed guys get #1 & idiots get #2.

I'm not grasping your point in saying 2-man is a crime and should be treated as such.

Yes, 3-man officiating is better, but in most cases, it's not as if those working on a 2-man crew have a choice in the matter.