Alternating Possession Debate

[Refsmitty]

You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Refsmitty

You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

When a vet argues with me it usually reassures me that I'm right.

[bowlingref]

I worked a jv boys game a couple years ago and stayed to watch a really varsity game worked by three veteran guys. Fourth quarter, illegal screen and the vets let the offenedd team shoot one and one. I tried to tell one of the vets from the end line that they were wrong, so did the furious coach. To no avail,both the coach and I lost. When I got home I sent all three a copy of the rule in a nice way and I got apologies from all three.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Refsmitty

You are correct BNR - but when a vet argues with you it sometimes creates some self doubt.

As I posted earlier today. Veteran official != official that knows the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

As I posted earlier today. Veteran official != official that knows the rules.

Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

I hear you. I guess I'm arrogant enough to not care about years of experience when I know the official is full of it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Maybe, but when they sound sure of themselves (which they usually do), they can sound convincing enough to create doubt.

That's never been enough to create doubt for me, even during my formative years in officiating. Only thing that would create doubt is a rule or case book citation, which in my dealings with "vets" at the HS level, always seems to be oddly missing from the conversations.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I hear you. I guess I'm arrogant enough to not care about years of experience when I know the official is full of it.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's never been enough to create doubt for me, even during my formative years in officiating. Only thing that would create doubt is a rule or case book citation, which in my dealings with "vets" at the HS level, always seems to be oddly missing from the conversations.

I'm with you. But I've been able to convince partners to do the wrong thing (my first few games, working MS in rural Iowa) and allow any player on the floor to shoot FTs for an injured shooter. Now, I usually soften the discussion with vets by saying something along the lines of, "I thought it was X, but you've got me curious," and proceed to open the book and find it.

[BillyMac]

Rookie officials have recently spent a lot of time with their heads buried in rulebooks, and casebooks, to prepare for the rookie exam. They are only required to know (with the exception of the "new" team control on a throwin backcourt rule) the most recent set of rules. A difficult, but not impossible task, and some do it quite well.

Veteran officials have been through years, and years, of rule changes, and casebook interpretation changes. Dozens of changes for most. Hundreds of changes for a few. Sometimes these changes can be just as confusing, or more confusing, than the original rules that they learned many, many, years ago.

I had a brand new official straighten me out with the "new" kicked ball on a throwin interpretation a few years ago during a freshman game. He was so new that he still had that new official smell. My response to him, "Thanks partner, nice job."