If You Were Paying Attention ...
 

...

I able to do that without looking to see where the receivers feet are, and without staring directly at him.

To this particular partner, no… he showed up late, as when he arrived I was taking the few minutes before the game to check roster pictures from both teams.

But I do emphasize to my partners during high school games to stop the game and discuss any opportunity to correct an error I made. I try to be as open to my partner as I can by giving him full reign over the game as long as we are able to communicate verbally and non-verbally throughout the game.

Afrosheen...

I'm really late to this conversation, but I did read most of the posts.

I appreciate your enthusiasm about getting a call correct...you know, for the integrity of the game etc.

Let me share a little story, that kind of goes along these lines.

Some years back, during the old two whistle days here in WA. state, I was doing an evaluated game at the "B" State Tournament. I was new L as the ball was coming from the backcourt to "my" frontcourt. The T was trailing the play around midcourt. I was already at the endline. I was "looking throug the players" (ball watching);) as I saw a crash around midcourt. The player that was dribbling had been fouled. My partner did not have a call...for whatever reason. I thought I would "save the crew" and make the call.

After the tournament...I read my evaluations. The evaluator said, "that while your call was correct, it is not your call, let your partner live and die with it." (I got to watch the championship game from the table as the Alternate Official) Who knows? :o

Anyway, this situation isn't exactly like yours...in that you were questioning a possible RULE error...while I was questioning JUDGEMENT.

I guess my point is...with many situations and experiences of approaching my partner...I have a general philosophy ...If I am going to ERROR...I am going to ERROR on the side of LET IT GO, TALK ABOUT IT LATER.

SIDENOTE: A lot depends on game situation, level of play, how far away I am from the play, how sure I am that my partner kicked a call, does my partner really need the help, etc.

Again, it sounds like you really do care about this officiating gig...that's cool.;)

Thank you RookieDude. No worries on the late post, I've subscribed to the topic and I'll read what comes to my inbox. Replying to it though depends on the quality of the post.

And I can relate to your point as I had an evaluation myself where I had a crash but I was the trail in a transition play and I made a call that was in my partner's area. The evaluators recommended the same thing as they wanted to see the other ref be more willing to make the call.

The central reason why I created this thread is to glean from others how they've determined the balance between trusting their partner and essentially living and dying with his call and maintaining the integrity of the game. To me these two things are at the opposite ends of a spectrum and making that choice is fuzzy rather than as black and white as some people make it out to be. And I see you got what I was intending with my post by sharing. So thank you for that.

I forgot to ask before. What in the world is this about?

Ringers ???
 

Must be some type of local, or state, AAU procedure to make sure that a mini-LeBron James isn't illegally added to a team roster at the last minute? Seems to me that this should be a responsibility of an AAU administrator, rather than an official. Add this to the Bay State postgame hand shake rule, and it could make for a long day at the table.

Most definitely agree. If this were an official's responsibility, I wouldn't be signing on for a 2nd day of officiating. I have a hard enough time telling my own kids' pictures apart.

I'm a former ref and a current coach. I am on the side of getting the call right. I really appreciate when officials confer regardless if the call is changed or not. I think it shows professionalism, teamwork, and a genuine concern for the integrity of the game. In my experience, those willing to ask/listen for/to help are usually the best refs. They are confident enough in their abilities that their ego isn't involved.

It does not have anything to do with professionalism. Not every call is up for debate. And that is the point of most people here. That is why we have primary coverage areas. In this case we have an official almost completely out of position to know what is called or if a violation took place in most cases. It is really not about ego, but knowing your job. And if you are seeing a backcourt violation when you are no where near the division line, that tells me you are not watching your responsibities. There are so many times things happen as an official somewhere else on the court I have absolutely no idea what my partner called. And unless you have definite information, then honestly there is no reason to confer.

Peace

You're correct as for what's going on, but how will you get enough AAU administrators at these gyms, or I should say warehouses turned into gyms with ten to fifteen courts, to check pictures before each game?

There's a gym supervisor who's there to keep the official's accountable, and all that needs to be done is to stand next to players during their layup drills and have them point to their picture as they're standing in line.

If there's an issue the opposing team can get one of its team members to get the supervisor and adjudicate the issue.

What's specifically going on at these games is that the players are competing at the same grade level with a two year age window which means that they've got to get their players certified before the "aau (fall, winter, spring, summer) league" starts. And that's what I was doing five-ten minutes before the game started.

I agree with almost everything you said. I concur - not everything is up for debate, and if you don't have definite info then no reason to confer. I don't know if this situation calls for help or not. I wasn't there. The MSU game video shows the officials conferred on a backcourt violation and got the call right. Was that done by a person looking outside his area? I don't know but it was handled professionally. Sounds like Afrosheen didn't have "definite" info and thus apologized later. So, probably not a sitch to confer. But, I gotta disagree that you think it has nothing to do with professionalism. E.g., if you see a ball tipped prior to going out of bounds, that your partner didn't, and he's about to give the ball to the wrong team, i think you have a professional responsibility to confer. His choice to change it...

Again, I don't understand how this is a question of being out of position. If I have enough evidence to determine that my partner possibly kicked a rule, I'm going to go up to my partner to make sure that he's got the rule right. If it's a judgment then yes, positioning matters, but if it's a rule then I'm going to ask him to let me know his understanding of the rule and still give him the right to either keep or change the call. We are a crew, but if I'm working a game and it's going to be on tape, I'm going to be as accountable as my partner is when it comes to the rules, and the minimum obligation that is to be met in every game is for the crew of officials to make the game is officiated by the correct rules. If my partner makes a bad judgment call, fine, we'll talk it over in the locker room; but if he possibly kicked a rule, there is no question that I'm going to have him confirm to me his understanding of the rule and give him the opportunity to change the call before moving onto the next play.

Again, let me repeat for the nth time before I get bonked again, that I approached my partner in an overbearing fashion which created the fallout thereafter. I'm merely here to ask how to respectfully confer with your partner over such matters and thankfully I have at least the video of a similar situation during a D1 game to look over and learn.

edit: I'm noting that I'm on the same page as Coach Bill who posted prior to this one.

I am not sure which MSU game you are referring to, but the one I can think of where they were in Ann Arbor, the call was not changed. And it was not changed because the calling official saw the entire play and ruled a dribble took place (I might have to post the video).

I guess I am missing the "professionalism" angle you are taking here. I do not see talking to each other or not talking to each other less or more professional. Whether we discuss a play is more procedural based on mechanics, then professionalism. If you do not see something or you are not in position to see something, that does not mean you are unprofessional not to confer on something you did not see or when you trust the judgment of your partner. I rarely have to confer on anything when I have good partners that do their jobs.

I was at a meeting tonight where a Final Four official was the main speaker and in his opinion the reason he was where he was is because he "minds his business" most of the time. He was talking about not taking over games and making calls for his partners. He is about as respected an officials as anyone in the country and he feels he should let his partners work. We are all put on the game for a reason, if they cannot do their job it is not my job to save them or to ask them "Are you sure?" every time there is a close call. Basketball officials do not confer on foul calls unless we have a double whistle (and even then we agree or let our partner take the call), so why would we confer on other calls where someone sees the play completely in their primary? Maybe I have a different idea of professionalism.

Peace

Are you going to go to your partner every time they call a travel? Are you going to say something if your partner calls closely guarded violation? What about 10 second violations? What about a held ball? You could do this all day and those things I just referenced and will likely happen in a game. Why was this situation you referenced so special? You did not have any direct information to add to the situation. You just did not trust your partner and then questioned his knowledge of the rule. If you had some information that would change the call, OK, but that is not what happened from my understanding.

You could have approached your partner in the nicest way, that still does not give you the right to come to your partner and question their judgment by coming to them in your situation. Once again, if you had information that might have helped get the call right, like knowing the ball was touched in a way that would help in making the call. But you had none of that and only asked them a question. If you are going to come to a partner, you should not be asking questions, you should be giving information. I even tell partners if you are going to help with a call, come with information like, "I saw the ball touched.......so it cannot be a violation." When you ask a question if someone understands a rule, that is not being helpful in the heat of the battle. If you really did not see anything and are unsure, go to your partner at halftime or after the game to see if they understand the rule. But while the game is going on is the wrong time to do a rules clinic IMO.

Peace

JRutledge, please read my posts more carefully as the rhetorical questions you're asking are all judgment plays (traveling - judging whether the dribble started before picking up the pivot foot; closely guarded - whether the defender was within six feet and actively guarding the opponent; 10 seconds - on the referee who's counting; held ball - simultaneous possession with no one gaining sole possession after a tug). I purposefully bolded the word "rule" for a reason.

As I just indicated all of these are judgment plays. I'm referring to rule mistakes. Examples of these include awarding the ball to the wrong team after an alternating possession where there was a technical foul during the last one; awarding a one-and-one when a team is not in bonus; taking away a team's privilege to run the baseline after a foul/violation on the throw-in on a made basket; not calling a violation on a free throw that doesn't hit the rim; continuing a ten-second count and thereby calling a violation off an interrupted possession where the ball went out of bounds in the backcourt and the same team inbounds the ball; awarding a basket on a field goal try with less than three tenths of a second remaining.

Take for example the last one. You're coming out of a timeout with less than three-tenths of a second remaining. Your partner is the trail and you are the lead. The play is in your partner's area, he sees a player catch the throw-in and immediately throw it at the basket and the ball goes in - Derek Fisher style. He turns around to the table and indicates to the table to score the basket and award the team with the win. What are you going to do?

Bottom line is, if your job is to "judge" plays then you ought to know when to confer with your partner over a call as that is part of the play as you're still responsible to judge whether the call by your partner merited a mini-conference to make sure as a crew you got the call right based on the rules.

Again, I'm asking how to respectfully confer with your partner over a particular call. Not every call, not judgment calls where your partner is on top of the play, but on those rare calls where your partner might have missed something you definitely saw, or a call that was based on a misinterpretation or ignorance of a rule regardless of your position or what you saw. Maybe this time, on the eight page of this thread, people who have been criticizing me will finally understand my question.

All those things can be incorrectly called because of the understanding or lack of understanding of the rules involved. And you just said something that shows either a lack of understanding of a rule or not knowing the rule on closely guarded. ;)

A backcourt violation involves both judgment as well as rules knowledge to make properly. That is no different then those other rules I referenced. And you even said something that is not part of the rule for closely guarded that could affect the judgment for making that call.

That would depend, is the ball in my primary? Do I have the last second shot responsibility? Do I have a good look at the play?

Then again this is a last second shot situation, this is not a travel in the middle of the 1st quarter. I see more travels I disagree with and I have yet to see an official come to someone and ask an official about the rules in those cases, like calling a travel on a legal jump stop. Those are rules based too, not just judgment calls.

I have told you how. And I would also add that not every call needs to have a conference when the only thing you are doing is asking questions. And some calls are much more acceptable to conference on, but those usually involve things like an out of bounds where it is very possible the ball is coming from different areas on the court and a partner can see who last touched it. Even then you do not ask a question, you tell your partner what you saw and let them decide if your information helps them make a call. And I am not criticizing you just to criticize you. If you have not noticed I was responding to Coach Bill's position on professionalism. You came in later to defend your original point, which I was not even being critical of again. You responded to me as if my comments to Bill was about you. That is fine, but I honestly have stated my opinion on this issue some time ago. You keep wanting to get validation that you were right. I guess that is fine, but there is a time and a place and your OP, that was not the time or the place.

Peace

"No" on all counts. And how does the "last shot" all of a sudden grant you to change up the "mechanics" as you described to Coach Bill. Either you're principled and consistent or you're just making stuff up now to maintain the belief that I was wrong. And it seems to be you keep dodging my question. What are you going to do when your partner kicks a rule? I'm also getting the sense that you're now at least willing to consider to confer with your partner now that it is a "last shot" situation, which means all of a sudden you're now willing to throw away all of your criticisms of me of being "out of position" or "questioning my partner" out the window. What is it about the "last shot" that you're now being inconsistent? What did you just do that created this inconsistency. I'll give you a hit, it starts with a "j" and ends with "udge."

I guess you do not know that continuous motion is not only rules based and a judgment call. It is such a judgment call that many officials improperly do not award baskets or shots properly on fouls because they might lack knowledge of the rule or their judgment. And the last time I checked officials do not tell other officials what to do when it comes to that rule. All you can do properly is tell your partner, "The ball went in the basket" or in some situations, "He passed the ball off." Other then that if they insist that a ball handler was not shooting and the foul was "On the floor" there is not much a partner can do. I guess you could sit there and argue on the floor they are wrong and get into a confrontation as you did with your partner (as you did not give any information), so be it. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have not gotten in any confrontations with partners on the floor for these kinds of situations. On the other hand, you have had such confrontation and made your partner so mad they confronted you in email. That also has never happen to me in my career. So how is that attitude working out for you?

Peace

I agree about not coming to your partner with everything...

but, when a partner does come in...do they really come to you with the above attitude?

We pre-game something like this...(and it is usually for OOB calls)

"...if you think you kicked the call (roar of the crowd/players/coach) then give me a look...(if I have information, and maybe even if I don't);) I'll point the "CORRECT" direction...you blow your whistle and YOU change it...and away we go...don't waste a lot of time on it."

Sure, sometimes a partner might have to come in and give another partner some information, "unsolicited"...but, you better make sure you are 100% correct and it needs to be corrected. Even then...I am not about to tell my partner that "it cannot be this or cannot be that"...I give them the information I have and let them decide if they want to change THEIR CALL.

First, we have answered that question ad nauseum, and you don't seem to like the answer. The answer, of course, is that while there are situations where we would approach our partners, the one you posted here is not one of them.

Using a D1 official's actions to justify doing it in an AAU game doesn't change the answer, for reasons I (and others) have already stated.

Against my better judgment, I'll try one more time.

If you're 100% sure it's a rules issue, then you (probably) go in.

If you're 100% sure it's a judgment issue, then you (probably) do not go in.

I think we all agree on the above.

Your play is tougher because it's 50% judgment and 50% rules. So, some are going to say go in and some (most in this specific play) say do not go in.

Given that you went in, you asked the right first question. Then when you got the answer "player control in the FC" (or whatever the specifics were), it was clear that it now was a 100% judgment call -- so you should now accept it and get on with the game.

@JRutledge
Why are you changing up the example of the play? How did a play with three tenths of a second remaining where there's a field goal attempt all of a sudden turn into a question of "continuous motion"? In all honestly, are you actually reading my posts or are you creating straw man posts to address the issues you personally have and imposing them on me?

Like where are these toxic statements coming from:
So much for giving "peace"…


@Adam
Again, some understood the question, and some did not, and some like you are giving an incomplete answer. I don't see why the play that I had would not be one where I would go up to my partner as I addressed your reasons before this thread turned sour for a couple of pages. I'm hoping that it be possible for this forums users to share their reasons in a principled and logical fashion rather than using personal attacks like JRutledge did above as I'm willing to continue this discussion respectfully. If you don't like that I've disagreed with you, that's on you.



@Bob
You obviously understood my question. I'm addressing those who have focused on one aspect of the play that I personally had in such a critical fashion that they're going as far as making it nearly an absolutist position to not confer with their partner just for the sake of indicating how wrong I really was. How this is a principled position I don't know, which is why I'm still posting in this thread to find out.

About my personal play, yes, I got what I needed in the play; it was my overbearing attitude that was the reason why I was at fault which needs to be changed the next time I choose to confer with my partner. And since I am only talking about this one play that I went up to my partner rather than describing my situation as trying to correct every mistake I believe my partner made during the game, it should be safe to assume that I understand that conferring with your partner is to be done during those rare times during the game where one believes it would be prudent to do so. But that again comes down to the official's judgment and not on an absolutist rule that every time I believe my partner made a mistake that I'm always going up to him or never going up to him.

As I indicated, I don't believe that I was wrong in believing it was a prudent moment to go up to my partner, but rather a poor approach where I should have come in more respectfully. Now I'm trying to find out why this is still not satisfactory from those who have been extremely critical of me as well as seeking advice from officials who are willing to confer with their partner on those rare calls in how to do it properly and with respect.

Why are you giving unrelated examples to justify your questioning a partner about a BC violation that you were not in a position to see? Once you figure that out, then maybe you can understand what me and others are saying to you. Once again, you asked this question about what you did, not me. I have made it very clear of my stance on this, you just want to keep justifying your silly actions.

Peace

They're not unrelated as they go to the central point of my question: How to address a partner who may have possibly kicked a rule or did not have information that you definitively have.

Read the original post JRutledge.

I did read the original post. You came to your partner about a call they knew they got right. You came to them questioning if they knew the rule without any information to help them change the call or show they got it wrong. And now you are trying to justify your actions by saying, "It was a rules....blah....blah....blah....."

And if I spent my time always worrying about if a partner kicked a rule on their calls, I would have to question them several times a game and I am not doing that at all. I certainly would have to do it with traveling, double dribble and closely guarded several times a game, even when a call was not actually made if I use your logic.

Peace

I asked this in my high school unit and what it came down to is that since most varsity games are taped or possibly televised, that the partners (who know when it is prudent to confer with their partner) to give the calling official a second opportunity to consider what happened in the play. If he still comes back to the same conclusion, as a crew you go with it. But now the other official(s) are in the clear if it was a kicked rule after all as it would be evidenced by the tape that could be watched after the game is over.

As far your worries, then I don't know what to tell you. Conferring with your partner is still a judgment call as I believe it is up to the officials to understand when it is prudent to approach your partner on a possibly botched call. And in this thread there is evidence of such a play shown on video. Though if you don't think it is ever prudent, then that's on you. But to tell me that I'm wrong merely based on the latter is foolish.

I did not say anything about it was never prudent to come to a partner. Not only do I go to partners on calls they ask for help, I have gone to them when I see the entire play. Unlike you I come with definitive information, not questions. This is also something I talk about in pre-game every time. Did you do that in your situations?

And BTW, I have had officials come to me on a BC violation a few times and usually they are asking questions of things they did not see, like coming to me saying, "The ball was tipped." Well that is great, but what the hell does that question have to do with who was the first to touch the ball in the BC and the last to touch the ball in the FC? Absolutely nothing. And in those case at least the official that said something had some dual area. You had no dual area in your insistence you were doing the right thing.

I had a situation last year where I was the New Trail on a press coverage defense and a pass was thrown to the middle of the court and the Center called a BC violation that involved multiple touches of the ball. The coach wanted me to change the call and my answer to him was simple, "He is standing right there, neither you or I saw what he saw." I was no where near the division line or the play and if I questioned his call that would have been the wrong thing to do considering I had no information or anything to add. The official was a playoff officials with similar experience I had and if he did not know the rule, nothing I could do in that situation to do to help him. And I am pretty confident he knew the rule. And I told the coach, if you want an explanation, "Ask him when he gets over here, I am sure he will tell you what he saw." We did not hold up the game, we did not need to discuss the play on the court. We did discuss the play in the locker room (like I told you to do) and he confirmed what he saw and why it was a violation. Actually my partner confirmed what I already knew. I guess you feel I should tell him how much more I know than him, even with the fact I did not see the play in question.

Peace

Well, there are some officials who don't believe "possibly" is good enough reason to go to a partner. There are also supervisors who think this same way.

On the other hand, if I believe I may be possibly kicking a rule or a call, I will go to confer with a my partner(s).

Frankly, I'm ok with you disagreeing.
I just haven't found your responses anything more than entertaining. Certainly not convincing that approaching your partner was the right decision here.

And honestly, if you think the quoted portion of Rut's post is a personal attack, I'm sorry. It may be a bit abrasive, but it wasn't really personal, IMO.

You asked two separate questions, and I don't see that I've misunderstood them.

1. How do you approach the partner at this point.
Answer: He is acting like a baby, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

2. When do we find it appropriate to approach a partner about a call?
Answer (for the vast majority of officials in this thread): Not on this play as you describe. Further, we've elaborated on plays that we would do so and why they're different than the play in question.

The difference matters, IMO.

The three partners I've approached from lead on BC calls, 2 I knew 100% were rule errors (one was changing his call as I approached), and the other was a play where he didn't see the tip because it happened in the lane.

I assume my partners know the rules until they show me something definitive that states otherwise. You haven't indicated this partner had given you any reason to doubt his rule knowledge.

The only time I'm coming up to my partner on a play like I had where I'm not on top of the play is when my partner might be kicking the rule, and I say might because of the very fact that I'm not on top of the play as I did not have definitive knowledge. Unfortunately, in this instance, my approach was bad as I did not make my request to confer to be short and quick and respectful, and that I will change.

Still I will go up to my partner when he possibly kicked a rule. For instance, in my first year of officiating I called a ten second count in the backcourt during the girls game. If my partner did not come up to me and tell me there isn't a ten second count in girls, it would have been a situation where my ego, pride, self-respect added insult to injury as my ignorance of the rules was not corrected because my partner did not want to "offend" me. Screw that. If I'm ignorant of something, whether it's the rules or anything definitive that my partner saw, I'm more than willing to consider what he has to say if he wants to confer. And thus vice a versa. That's how it should be.

Check your egos at the door, this is a basketball game, and you're the officials whose purpose is to maintain the integrity of the game.


If it's a rule botch as in the video that AremRed posted, it doesn't matter what your positioning is as your position doesn't mean that the rules all of a sudden change. I would still go up to him and tell him the rule and ask him if the player violated that rule. If he says yes, I'm running back to my spot.

@Adam

And as far your question as what made it indicative is that this ref is inexperienced, with three years under his belt, with a history of irresponsible behavior. But as an assignor, I'd like to give people opportunities to learn from their mistakes and grow as people. If you also want to include that as legitimate to criticize by all means go ahead, but I'm starting to get a sense of the type of person you are.

It was posted earlier by AremRed:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post907905

You probably missed it, because you were too busy arguing with Afrosheen. That's a joke. They did change the backcourt call in this case. An official who may or may not have been in the best position (He was on the baseline) to see this, did see it 100%, and conferred with his partner, and they got the call right. I like it. And, I like it even when the call gets changed against my favor. I think of that as an aspect of professionalism. We can disagree. It's probably just semantics.

Last chance to keep this thread on track.

My read of that particular video is that the non-calling official approached the other official to ask him what he saw. I highly doubt that official was watching the play from 50 feet away; not at that level. Now, he obviously had the experience, and the built in respect from the calling official, to talk through the play on the spot.

Have I personally attacked you in any way?

Frankly, this is the first I've read that this particular official has been a problem. It explains why you would assume it was a rule error rather than a judgment disagreement. It also explains why you were cheating up (an assumption from your earlier description of your positioning on the play) a bit to keep your eye on a play so far out of your primary.

We've all been there with partners who have demonstrated incompetence.

I would ask, though, whether this official had previously demonstrated inadequate rules knowlege, or just "irresponsible behavior" (a fairly vague term).

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.