Judging a "judgement" call

[just another ref]

I have two thoughts on the OP:

If you are working a varsity game with a partner who doesn't know this rule, chances are there were other problems as well.

It would have to be something really blatant before I would stop the game to question my partner's traveling call.

[tref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have two thoughts on the OP:

If you are working a varsity game with a partner who doesn't know this rule, chances are there were other problems as well.

It would have to be something really blatant before I would stop the game to question my partner's traveling call.

After an obvious IC the game is already stopped & re-gaining possession of an airball is really blatant, no?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

After an obvious IC the game is already stopped & re-gaining possession of an airball is really blatant, no?

Not necessarily. If you have a clear view of the play, including his feet, sure. But that's not likely in a two-man game, or even three if there are a lot of players around the rebounder.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

...4. If coach tells me what partner says (and it happens to be incorrect and opposite of what I just agreed with) I would tell coach I will talk with partner but it's obvious he is incorrect.

...

My #1 rule of officiating: Never believe what a coach claims another official said.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not necessarily. If you have a clear view of the play, including his feet, sure. But that's not likely in a two-man game, or even three if there are a lot of players around the rebounder.

Originally Posted by rickman5

A1 drives to that basketbal and attempts a try. The try does not hit anything and he grabs his own rebound.

On a drive to the rack, I dont know where else the officials are looking. Generally, thats where all the action areas are. IMO, if you dont have the ball & there are no engaged matchups in your primary then you should be officiating where you could get hurt next... on plays to the basket, that would be in the paint where the obvious airball was shot & subsequently recovered by the shooter.

I have worked with "ECA guys" (exclusive coverage area) who work their 3rd whether players are there or not, so I understand how it could be missed. I've also called fouls from the L & partners arent able to help with if the ball went in or not, so I can understand how it could be missed.

I guess thats why we savor those nights where we have a sharp crew of 3 & they all have crew chief tendencies! Those have been my easiest & most enjoyable games to work.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

On a drive to the rack, I dont know where else the officials are looking. Generally, thats where all the action areas are. IMO, if you dont have the ball & there are no engaged matchups in your primary then you should be officiating where you could get hurt next... on plays to the basket, that would be in the paint where the obvious airball was shot & subsequently recovered by the shooter.

I have worked with "ECA guys" (exclusive coverage area) who work their 3rd whether players are there or not, so I understand how it could be missed. I've also called fouls from the L & partners arent able to help with if the ball went in or not, so I can understand how it could be missed.

I guess thats why we savor those nights where we have a sharp crew of 3 & they all have crew chief tendencies! Those have been my easiest & most enjoyable games to work.

Actually, in a 2 man crew it's MORE likely for the off-official to be looking at the same place as his partner because the Trail would have had the origin of that drive and positioned himself to see the whole play.

In a 3-man crew if I'm opposite the Lead I'm less likely to be watching all that action as I would be positioned to see all the weakside activity and I would have a whole lot of bodies between me and A1 catching his airball.

[tref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Actually, in a 2 man crew it's MORE likely for the off-official to be looking at the same place as his partner because the Trail would have had the origin of that drive and positioned himself to see the whole play.

In a 3-man crew if I'm opposite the Lead I'm less likely to be watching all that action as I would be positioned to see all the weakside activity and I would have a whole lot of bodies between me and A1 catching his airball.

While I believe that the L should get over there unless its an immediate drive off a swing pass, what you say makes good sense!
BUT depth off the endline along with pinching the paint gets a better look at both action areas.

What the heck is the T watching in your sitch? Not too often do we see guys still setting screens on drives to the basket or defenders bodying up a player at the 3 point line.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

...
What the heck is the T watching in your sitch? Not too often do we see guys still setting screens on drives to the basket or defenders bodying up a player at the 3 point line.

In the OP, based on the C making the call, I'm assuming the drive originated in the C's primary and ended there likewise. As the Trail I would have long ago looked away from the ball and down into the paint, maybe even hedging towards becoming the new C if the Lead has closed down. My eyes would not have been on A1 unless he came into the paint going to the front of the rim.

[Camron Rust]

If a coach asks me what a rule is, I tell him what the rule is.

I will generally not comment to them on my partner's potential misapplication of a rule.....I simply tell them I have no info on the call and they need to consult my partner about what they did or did not call.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If a coach asks me what a rule is, I tell him what the rule is. I will generally not comment to them on my partner's potential misapplication of a rule. I simply tell them I have no info on the call and they need to consult my partner about what they did or did not call.

Agree. Just take out the word, "generally".

If a coach politely asks me if a field goal from behind the arc is worth three points, I'm not going to pretend that it's not. He knows the rule, and I know the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. Just take out the word, "generally".

If a coach politely asks me if a field goal from behind the arc is three points, I'm not gong to pretend that it's not. He knows the rule, and I know the rule.

I use generally because if my partner calls something that is a clear misapplication n of the rule and I'm asked by the coach before I get to address it, I'll acknowledge the coach's point and then go deal with it.

Example: Throwin form the frountcourt endline that is thrown over everyone's head into the backcourt where A1 goes to get it. Partner calls a backcourt violation as soon as A1 first touches the ball.....and coach says "hey, i thought that was legal". I'll acknowledge the coach and then go to my partner.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by tref

After an obvious IC the game is already stopped & re-gaining possession of an airball is really blatant, no?

Not in the OP, apparently.

I figure, with a veteran official, he had him taking steps on the rebound.....