Questioning Partner's Call

[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.

[Afrosheen]

@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:

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.