Questioning Partner's Call

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

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...

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

[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.

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by Adam

Now, he obviously had the experience, and the built in respect from the calling official, to talk through the play on the spot.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Adam

Ah, I recall the play now. I'll say this; I would never do this. There are a couple of major differences, IMO.

1. The way NCAA officials respond to Izzo is vastly different than the way I would recommend officials respond to AAU coaches.
2. The official who approached his partner seems to have simply asked for an explanation of the call and offered the correct rule.
3. The questioning official has built up a lifetime of situations from which he can draw to know both how to approach his partner and how to deal with the coach afterwards.
4. Don't think the calling official's credibility wasn't damaged by this sequence. Now, whether it was worth the damage is up for debate, and is likely contingent on a number of factors. Personally, I think the ramifications of that damage would be much more significant in an AAU setting than in a college setting where proscribed recourse is already in place to maintain control and bench decorum.
5. That damage is mitigated largely by the fact that he's working this level to begin with. AAU officials don't have that built in cushion.

[Adam]

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

[JRutledge]

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 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.

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

[Afrosheen]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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:

In a statement to ESPN.com Wednesday, however, Big Ten officials said the two plays were different because an official in the Michigan-Michigan State game had ruled that Appling had established control before he crossed into the backcourt. The league reviewed the call and supports the official’s decision.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Afrosheen

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.