Questioning Partner's Call

I had a situation like yours, and wrote about it here if you want to read it. These situations are almost exactly the same, in that we were both trying to bring information to our partner to make the right (in our eyes) call.

In my thread, half the forum members thought my partner was too uptight about hearing my opinion on the play, and the other half thought I should have left the decision in his hands. It seems to me like the same thing has happened in this thread.

However, you are the assignor. You are in charge of setting expectations for those who work under you. As far as dealing with this guy: be direct. Tell him that the officiating crew is a team, and their goal is to get plays right. If your partner has information he thinks can help, he should present it. It is up to the calling official to decide whether to take it or not. The key is being humble enough to listen to his information, opinion, and/or criticism.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I had a situation like yours, and wrote about it here if you want to read it. These situations are almost exactly the same, in that we were both trying to bring information to our partner to make the right (in our eyes) call.

In my thread, half the forum members thought my partner was too uptight about hearing my opinion on the play, and the other half thought I should have left the decision in his hands. It seems to me like the same thing has happened in this thread.

However, you are the assignor. You are in charge of setting expectations for those who work under you. As far as dealing with this guy: be direct. Tell him that the officiating crew is a team, and their goal is to get plays right. If your partner has information he thinks can help, he should present it. It is up to the calling official to decide whether to take it or not. The key is being humble enough to listen to his information, opinion, and/or criticism.

Thank you, I sincerely appreciate your posts in this thread as you kept your posts grounded and focused more on the approach rather than the nitty gritty stuff that will forever remain ambiguous and could be argued over for days.

I responded to the officials emails in a stern sense as I did apologize to him during the game so having to deal with an official attempting to win one over me wasn't something that I enjoyed addressing as he has a lot to work on as it is.

I distinguished his concern from the rulebook in that on the personal side that I was mistaken to have approached him as I know now that he's sensitive. And I told him the next time we work together that I'll leave him on his own to live and die on his own calls at the slight expense of the integrity of the game.

But on the other hand I told him that I did not appreciate how he tried to veil an attempt to prove my reasoning to be wrong in such a disingenuous manner especially after I first asked him to specify his question in his initial email. I suggested to him that I'll be willing to consider what he has to say if he first shows that he's willing to give a proper reading of the rulebook and presents himself in a more genuine manner. And I left it as that.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by reffish

I actually wanted a reply, but need to go to bed is all. In fairness, I did not address your original question on dealing with the email. It may have been said already, but email the young official and remind him that you were trying to provide additional information on the play that you believed was ruled incorrectly. Since you are the assignor, leave it at that and assign him or don't. Oh, one more thing I noticed you posted that as an experienced official you may come across as condescending to newer officials; maybe work on becoming less of that and more supportive and come in on plays where you have definitive knowledge, like OOB plays or incorrect shooter or fouler, and not on plays where you start describing the play using words like "I thought.." or "I believe.." And again, trust your partners, it will go along way.

I understand where you're coming from. But my concern was to be principled but also fair. So it's easy to say be less condescending, but in real terms how can I be less condescending? So the only way I know is present myself honestly and allow to be criticized and learn from the feedback that I receive.

As far as trusting partners… I don't believe trust should trump the integrity of the game. As I said to another poster here, I would hope that my partner doesn't only give me his trust as I would be concerned with making sure to get all the plays right in my primary especially in a two-person game. So when a situation like this arises in a game, I would hope that my partner has the balls to present me with something that I may not have considered before so that we'll look like a strong crew.

I even go as far as making my partner confer to me, when I blatantly kick a call even though he doesn't know, just to make it look like he gave me new information that I only got by myself after I made the call. So this idea that conferring is a signal of embarrassment needs to challenged at the very least.

[bob jenkins]

Several times you mentioned that you were the assigner -- that doesn't give you any extra rights / responsibilities during the game to go to your partner. I wonder if that "I'm the assigner" attitude doesn't carry over into other interactions with this official.

When you went to him, he said that control was gained in the FC. That can be done with one hand. No need to question him further.

You came here asking for advice, and you got it (some of which agreed with you and some of which didn't). Now you are not seeming to take it, and are just defending your position. It's like going to a camp -- take what works for you and ignore the rest.

The other official was wrong in how he communicated back to you later. You were wrong in how you handled it initially. Both imo, of course.

[MD Longhorn]

I don't intend offense by this, but suspect you're going to take it anyway.

You posted a situation and asked for advice. You got it.
You didn't like that advice and argued with it.
You added information to the play to try to support your opinion that you didn't need the advice. That added information made it clearer to most of us here that you really really do need this advice.
You repeatedly didn't like the advice and argued with it.

Seriously - if you want advice, learn to accept advice.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I don't intend offense by this, but suspect you're going to take it anyway.

You posted a situation and asked for advice. You got it.
You didn't like that advice and argued with it.
You added information to the play to try to support your opinion that you didn't need the advice. That added information made it clearer to most of us here that you really really do need this advice.
You repeatedly didn't like the advice and argued with it.

Seriously - if you want advice, learn to accept advice.

And now the condescension begins. I gave my thanks to those who were respectful. To people like you who think I should just accept it without being challenged… you're no worse that the hard head people who can't take criticism.

For shame.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

And now the condescension begins. I gave my thanks to those who were respectful. To people like you who think I should just accept it without being challenged… you're no worse that the hard head people who can't take criticism.

For shame.

I do not think it is condescending to point out you asked for our advice here and you seem not not be willing to accept that advice. If you have it figured out already, then maybe you should have never posted the situation. Otherwise this is on you for posting this in the first place. But the situation sounds really bad on both fronts with what you did on the court and even what the email said in your direction. Both of you should have been adults about it and been more professional IMO. This would have been a better conversation after the game and in person. And the conversation should have gone something like this.

You: What did you see on that back court play?

Partner: I saw a player in the control in the FC by the player having possession of the ball.

You: Well it looked like to me he did not have control.

Partner: I saw the entire thing and he had control by.............and that is why I made the call.

Partner: OK, that is all I wanted to know.

If that was the conversation, you might have had a better interaction. But now you are trying to defend your actions and act as if he had no right to be upset with you. And that does not mean he was right either. It just means that he was put off by your actions and there was a better way to handle this and not stinking as much as both of you did.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Several times you mentioned that you were the assigner -- that doesn't give you any extra rights / responsibilities during the game to go to your partner. I wonder if that "I'm the assigner" attitude doesn't carry over into other interactions with this official.

When you went to him, he said that control was gained in the FC. That can be done with one hand. No need to question him further.

You came here asking for advice, and you got it (some of which agreed with you and some of which didn't). Now you are not seeming to take it, and are just defending your position. It's like going to a camp -- take what works for you and ignore the rest.

The other official was wrong in how he communicated back to you later. You were wrong in how you handled it initially. Both imo, of course.

This. All of this.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by Adam

This. All of this.

Adam is playing the peer pressure game rather adding value to this discussion… what a shame.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

Adam is playing the peer pressure game rather adding value to this discussion… what a shame.

No, that wasn't playing any game with peer pressure. It was simply adding my agreement to what Bob had already said succinctly.

I'll address some more specifics later, but for now I have to get back to work.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Several times you mentioned that you were the assigner -- that doesn't give you any extra rights / responsibilities during the game to go to your partner. I wonder if that "I'm the assigner" attitude doesn't carry over into other interactions with this official.

When you went to him, he said that control was gained in the FC. That can be done with one hand. No need to question him further.

You came here asking for advice, and you got it (some of which agreed with you and some of which didn't). Now you are not seeming to take it, and are just defending your position. It's like going to a camp -- take what works for you and ignore the rest.

The other official was wrong in how he communicated back to you later. You were wrong in how you handled it initially. Both imo, of course.

Bob, you failed to read where I explicitly addressed this. And now that you failed to read, you're now alleging a personal attack and being disrespectful. Your posts now have no more value. Additionally, just because you post something doesn't mean I should agree to it. I will consider it, just like how a coach argues for his team, but to kowtow to someone just because they offered me something is not prudent or a reflection of integrity.

I would hope you would retract this allegation that I'm being too "big-headed" so to speak.

[reffish]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

I understand where you're coming from. But my concern was to be principled but also fair. So it's easy to say be less condescending, but in real terms how can I be less condescending? So the only way I know is present myself honestly and allow to be criticized and learn from the feedback that I receive.

As far as trusting partners… I don't believe trust should trump the integrity of the game. As I said to another poster here, I would hope that my partner doesn't only give me his trust as I would be concerned with making sure to get all the plays right in my primary especially in a two-person game. So when a situation like this arises in a game, I would hope that my partner has the balls to present me with something that I may not have considered before so that we'll look like a strong crew.

I even go as far as making my partner confer to me, when I blatantly kick a call even though he doesn't know, just to make it look like he gave me new information that I only got by myself after I made the call. So this idea that conferring is a signal of embarrassment needs to challenged at the very least.

The integrity of the game...you seem more concerned with making sure your partners know that you will be there to help on any and all calls that are ruled incorrect and if you come in to "help," regardless if it is asked or not, it is expected and should be welcomed by your partner, for the integrity of the game. And this business of you going as far as making your partners confer with you after you kick a call and you know that and you want it to look like he gives you new information, for the integrity of the game. I understand that you want to get the calls right, who doesn't in this forum. Your way of getting this done is coming off as condescending and self righteous, like you are the only one on the court that has all the right information, right philosophy (have pure integrity of the game), and ability to get all the calls right. You can present yourself honestly without being condescending: when you come in to help on calls, be right (avoid using believe, think, thought, maybe) and provide the information, don't ask questions (that only creates confusion on their part). provide information and the correct ruling (by rule...).

AAU ball is a great training center for young officials, the games are rather meaningless (I know teams pay a lot to play, but still, they are meaningless in the grand scheme of basketball) and sometimes it is okay for young officials to get plays incorrect, that is how we learn, we learn from our mistakes and if we have a partner that is always coming in on plays to correct them, they lose confidence and that is not good. I guess I am trying to say, don't be a helicopter partner/assignor/official.

[MD Longhorn]

To reffish's post, I would add that continued treatment of your fellow officials in the manner you seem to think is completely appropriate (even in the face of almost everyone else here, many of whom have FAR more experience than you, telling you repeatedly that you're wrong) is most likely going to generate a bunch of gunshy officials afraid to make any calls at all for fear of you rushing in to correct them. Not healthy.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

To reffish's post, I would add that continued treatment of your fellow officials in the manner you seem to think is completely appropriate (even in the face of almost everyone else here, many of whom have FAR more experience than you, telling you repeatedly that you're wrong) is most likely going to generate a bunch of gunshy officials afraid to make any calls at all for fear of you rushing in to correct them. Not healthy.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. I did not "repeatedly" tell him he was wrong. I just went up to him on one call and asked whether the player controlled the ball before going into the backcourt.

And who are you to deem what is healthy now? I love it when I go to a camp and get feedback from multiple officials. I love it when officials come to my games and come into the locker room and call me on calls I kick. I love it when my partner talks to me during the game and either comes up to me to save an obvious call or tells me honest feedback as we're working the game.

These type of posts are more condescending that what you're making me to be as you're imposing a belief on how officiating is supposed to be. No, you're absolutely wrong. And I hope you're man enough to accept this.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. I did not "repeatedly" tell him he was wrong.

Nor did I say such a thing. Reading is fundamental.

And with that I'm done.