I'm being sincere here in my question of how you saw this situation to be different than mine. Answering this question I'll be able to learn from it and see what I could do better next time.

This play is actually rather old. It is from about two seasons ago. This play was clipped up by APG and discussed on this site at the time. Actually the people here were part of the reason the play was clipped up if you have been paying attention to how things work here during the season. I think I was one of the people that asked for the play to be used here. And that was in the same season as I recall as another play with MSU later that season and the play was not overturned and gotten right.


Backcourt Violation Michigan State vs. Michigan - YouTubeBackcourt not overturned.

What about this play?

BTW, I have used both of these plays as a way to discuss when or when you help in association meetings which I am often given the platform to talk about mechanics being a state clinician. And talking does not make you more professional or not more professional. College guys have a completely different set of accountability that someone at an AAU game would never have. Because if MSU does not make the tournament they lose millions. If an AAU coach does not win the game, they are out a few hundred dollars. And no one is going to care when the game is over who actually won the game outside of the teams that might be at the tournament.

Peace

The mistakes he's made are those that if he had a more in depth knowledge of the rules. He's played before and has a great basketball IQ, but he's irresponsible and by extension is reluctant to do his homework to better prepare as an official.

BUT I'm of the mind that his maturity depends in part how I respect him, and unfortunately that was violated during my last game with him. So having realized that I want to know how to better respect an official despite our different experience and knowledge of the game.

I didn't see yours, but I can answer to why it's different than anything I'd ever attempt, or any play I've ever been involved with.

Part of it is, likely, knowing which officials are more receptive to in-game conferences, and which ones aren't.

That, unfortunately, sometimes comes from guessing incorrectly.

I wouldn't confer on that as it isn't a question of whether the rule was botched but rather a question of whether possession was gained before the ball going into the backcourt. I remembered this play as the Big Ten published their own statement in support of the calling official who ruled possession was gained prior to the ball going into the backcourt:

So this is purely a judgment from my perspective, as that play has nothing on it that would lead me to confer to my partner. It is purely his judgment and I wouldn't be able to add anything to the play.

It is purely a judgment call? So was the call by your partner made in your game. He ruled player control and then made a call. What is the difference? I am not seeing the distinction here. Or you do not realize that judgment calls whether they be block/charge, intentional fouls, traveling or a back court violation all are judgments based on rules that apply to make those calls correctly. ;)

Judgment calls are not void of rules knowledge and understanding.

Peace

Getting personal again. :rolleyes: That seems to be your M.O. while you whine incessantly about anybody who questions anything you do.

And it's really professional to assign an irresponsible official to an AAU game or any game, since you said all games are of equal importance.

Exactly!!!!! Only difference is that one game was on TV for all us to see for ourselves, and the other is situation that keeps getting layers added onto it every time someone disagrees. ;)

@BadNewsRef:

Are you intentionally trying to be a caricature of yourself? Ugh, and the audacity to tell me how to assign my games while you place the value of the games by the pay you get… I'm baffled how blind you are to your own hypocrisy…


@JRutledge:

You seem to have a very broad definition of "judgment." But that is your definition. Yet I'm getting a sense that instead of doing that extra bit of work to distinguish a call that was more of a kick of a rule than pure judgment, you dismiss everything as merely judgment plays and wash your hands of determining, or specifically judging, whether the play that your partner made a call merits a mini-conference. If you're not willing to discuss this as it evident how condescending your statements become when you do not wish to go into the nuance of something then we're going to once again hit an impasse, which I'm predicting will happen here as was the case in your most recent posts:

It seems to me this thread is past its shelf life. It's going in circles now.