Questioning Partner's Call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

[Afrosheen]

@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:

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?

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

@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"…

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

[Afrosheen]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

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

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by 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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

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. ....

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

@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.

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.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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?

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[Afrosheen]

@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.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).
Peace

It was posted earlier by AremRed:

backcourt on a thrown in

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

It was posted earlier by AremRed:

backcourt on a thrown in

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 correct position to see this, did see it, and conferred with his partner, and they got the call right. I think of that as an aspect of professionalism, you probably just think of it as good officiating, Either way, I think we're in agreement.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

@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.

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).