Discussed in an association meeting last night...

[Toren]

In the OP, the score was tied, then the coach got a technical, which should have been the start of OT. Seems pretty straight forward.

What if during the conference between the two officials, the coach had gotten a technical? Am I right in thinking that is still part of the 4th quarter? Since the error had not been corrected yet?

[bainsey]

Rich,

Was there any clarity as to which official (lead/trail) called the three and which insisted he was on the line? We're taught to handle these things differently, whether it's the lead or trail that initially signals.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Rich,

Was there any clarity as to which official (lead/trail) called the three and which insisted he was on the line? We're taught to handle these things differently, whether it's the lead or trail that initially signals.

I'm curious as to why this would make a difference.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm curious as to why this would make a difference.

Agree....a foot on the line is a foot on the line. The standard I go by is that if either officials sees a foot on the line, it is a 2 and they should stop play and indicate that it is a 2....and whether it is 2-person or 3-person mechanics, there will always be an area where both will be taking a look at the shot. If that were not the case, you'd have areas where neither were looking at the shot.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm curious as to why this would make a difference.

Visualization, mostly. You mentioned before, Bob, the one area of the floor where both could get a good look at the shooter. Otherwise, wouldn't we have a simple case of ball watching?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Visualization, mostly. You mentioned before, Bob, the one area of the floor where both could get a good look at the shooter. Otherwise, wouldn't we have a simple case of ball watching?

Not necessarily.

[tref]

Sneaking a peak on shot attempts to assist the crew is far different than ball watching.

[jeschmit]

Originally Posted by tref

Sneaking a peak on shot attempts to assist the crew is far different than ball watching.

Exactly. I was told, "Don't be a ball watcher, but always know the status of the ball."

This means that if a shot goes up, I'm doing everything in my power to get an angle as to where the shot went up and if it is a 3- or 2-pointer if its right near the 3-point arc. Of course, I can't see them all, especially if I have something that needs my attention right in front of me...

[7IronRef]

In this scenario, what is the most important thing(s) to get correct?

1) Know if the clock started
2) Determine if shot was 2 or 3
3) Was shot released before the expiration of time

If the crew needs to have 2 people on the ball, then so be it. That is what everyone else is watching and will be posting on youtube

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeschmit

Exactly. I was told, "Don't be a ball watcher, but always know the status of the ball."

This means that if a shot goes up, I'm doing everything in my power to get an angle as to where the shot went up and if it is a 3- or 2-pointer if its right near the 3-point arc. Of course, I can't see them all, especially if I have something that needs my attention right in front of me...

Most times, if I'm lead in two-man and the shot goes up anywhere but my area, I don't know if it's a 2 or 3. The two exceptions I can think of; transition plays and end-of-quarter shots where nothing else is going to matter.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Visualization, mostly. You mentioned before, Bob, the one area of the floor where both could get a good look at the shooter. Otherwise, wouldn't we have a simple case of ball watching?

1) At the end of the game (or quarter / half) all officials should have an opinion on all aspects of the last shot. Depending on from where it's taken, they might nt have much to offer, but still, ...

2) Whether it's "visualization" or not, it still doesn't explain why you'd have one practice if the T makes the call and another if the L makes the call. Are you saying that T should look in L's area, but L shouldn't look in T's area (or vice-versa)?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Are you saying that T should look in L's area, but L shouldn't look in T's area (or vice-versa)?

No. I'd like to know who had the three, who said it was a two, what angles both had on it, and how the team came to the determination that it was a two.

Additionally, in these parts, when a lead signals a three is good, the trail mirrors. (Vice versa, no mirror.) Did he trail clearly see the foot on the line? Instead of mirroring, I'd probably whistle pretty quickly if that were the case.