Timeout! Timeout! Timeout!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

First question: In a two whistle game, should I really not be looking in the lane for held ball/timeout/whatever else from trail in a scramble like that?

Why would you not be looking in the lane? Are players not there? Did other players from your primary not go to the lane? I am going to bet the most competitive match-ups were in the lane. I doubt that players were just standing around watching. So why would you not be looking in the lane?

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Second question: Are you less inclined to grant timeout when the coach is blindly screaming TIMEOUT TIMEOUT TIMEOUT like that, even though his guy eventually got player control?

I grant timeouts when I know there is possession. If I do not know there is possession, then I do not assume.

Peace

[bainsey]

It's a PRIMARY coverage area, not an EXCLUSIVE coverage area.

I have no problem with a partner that calls something like that in "my" area. I don't see what good it does to be territorial.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I have no problem with a partner that calls something like that in "my" area. I don't see what good it does to be territorial.

It doesn't do anyone any good except for someone's ego.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Not only is this scenario one in which I would expect both officials to be looking into the lane, but granting timeouts are not situations in which only the official with the ball in his/her primary should make the call. If the coach requests a timeout, I'm glancing to make sure his team has PC, then granting it, regardless of where the ball is.

+1. This is the correct way to think about a play like this. Not...

Originally Posted by fiasco

It doesn't do anyone any good except for someone's ego.

...it isn't about ego, it is about court coverage. I don't think it is too hard to theorize as to the importance of proper court coverage. With the proper theory and experience it should be perfectly clear why primary areas of coverage exist.

I would say that once properly trained, this discussion should never really take place. Additionally, someone who thinks like this and works 2-man shouldn't really care one way or another about ever working 3-man. After all, the reason for going to 3-man was improved court coverage. Why do you need 6 eyes watching the ball...4 should do fine.

License to ball watch...denied!

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tomegun

...it isn't about ego, it is about court coverage.

In my experience, officials who are "territorial" are very much about ego. It's THEIR area, so they don't want you coming into THEIR area, making THEIR calls. They don't want to look bad by having you come into their area and call something.

[tref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

In my experience, officials who are "territorial" are very much about ego. It's THEIR area, so they don't want you coming into THEIR area, making THEIR calls. They don't want to look bad by having you come into their area and call something.

It should be just the opposite! I thank my partner, verbally, right across the court when they save the crew. In the lockerroon I offer to buy the beer.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tref

It should be just the opposite! I thank my partner, verbally, right across the court when they save the crew. In the lockerroon I offer to buy the beer.

Agreed. Luckily, it seems to me that the further you get along, the less territorial officials seem to get.

[stiffler3492]

I kept going over the situation in my head last night, trying to think why my partner would have a problem with it, and you guys have confirmed my thoughts. He shouldn't have had an issue with it. I had a great look at it, saw player control 100%, and made the call.

I will bring this up with my partner tonight (different guy) and make sure we're on the same page.

I also wasn't sure if there was a difference in 3 vs 2 man mechanics in that situation. My partner last night works a lot of varsity. Other than that play, he had a lot of great advice for me.

[tref]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Other than that play, he had a lot of great advice for me.

I don't know what your experience level is, but if you're new I would be leery of accepting advice from a territorial guy.
Of course you would want to listen to everyone who offers, but then I would verify the recent camps he has attended & what level of ball he works. Many of these posers are sharing outdated info!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

In my experience, officials who are "territorial" are very much about ego. It's THEIR area, so they don't want you coming into THEIR area, making THEIR calls. They don't want to look bad by having you come into their area and call something.

Or they might not want the CREW to look bad by having you come in their area and call something WRONG.

In my career I have not come across officials who are territorial about calls and areas, exept for one in particular.

Other than that, the times other officials have talked to me about calls in their area they always discussed it with me as a "crew" dynamic, not a "my area" thing. Only have had one a-hole in my 10 year career.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

In my experience, officials who are "territorial" are very much about ego. It's THEIR area, so they don't want you coming into THEIR area, making THEIR calls. They don't want to look bad by having you come into their area and call something.

That may be true, but that is not what was asked. He was asking whether a person should go get something (specifically, verifying control for the purposes of a timeout) out of their primary.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That may be true, but that is not what was asked. He was asking whether a person should go get something (specifically, verifying control for the purposes of a timeout) out of their primary.

Not what who asked? The OP? I wasn't speaking to the OP when I brought up the "ego" issue. I was responding to a post from bainsey, who said "I don't see what good it does to be territorial.

It helps to read the entire thread.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It's a PRIMARY coverage area, not an EXCLUSIVE coverage area.

+1 Niiiice!

You know I'm jacking that, right?

[NoFussRef]

[QUOTE=bainsey;799744]It's a PRIMARY coverage area, not an EXCLUSIVE coverage area.

Outstanding way to address this issue!