Questioning Partner's Call
 

I had a play where my partner called a backcourt violation on inbounds where I thought the player catching the ball inbounds did not establish team control in the front court before going into the backcourt. My partner was the trail official, so I went up to him and asked him whether the player established team control in the front court. He replied by saying don't make this awkward and stop questioning my call. After the quarter I told him I was not intending to make this personal, I just wanted to make sure we had the call right. He then said that how could I have seen it better as Lead when he was on top of it as Trail. Granted he is still a fairly new official, but he acts very defensively and took this personally.

A couple of days later, I get an email with a veiled question of "what do you think of the first paragraph on page 307 in the Rules by Topic?" I returned, "what about it?"

He then writes: "Could you compare and contrast our situation with another of your choice to help me better understand why what happened Saturday was as you put normal of partners to do?"


The rule he is referencing is:

Now I'm wondering how to address this. I try to instill the value of working as a crew to get the call right. But now I'm not sure how to approach this situation and any further ones where I'm wanting to confer with my partner on a call.

I'm wondering how you guys apply this rule in your games?

let it go...
 

What kind of game (level) were you working?

My advice: let it go, and ask your assignor not to pair you with him again.

My guess is that your partner called what he saw--let him live or die with the call.

I tried to let it go during the game by telling him that my intentions were not personal.

Additionally, I'm the assignor for the club level games here in this region. I want to know the most tactful way of approaching this.

You could have given your partner "the look" telling him that you had some information, but I would not have gone up to him.

Given that you did, and that you are the assigner, my advice would be to apologize for it.

that's not to excuse his later actions.

New officials are going to miss calls for 1-30 years. Their self esteem is going to be on shaky ground for a long time. I do not think it is wise to question a decision from that far away for several reason. It is not a game changer or a HS game where this could decide the game in the last 30 seconds. Only time I extend my area is on a blatant everyone in the gym knows you missed an elbow to the face kind of call. A violation is not one of those we have to get or extend my area.

You clearly embarrassed a rookie and made him feel bad. We should be aware enough to apologize and move on right there and then. I wouldnt have ever brought it up again because clearly he has zero interest in help from you.

Here is how I would have brought it up later. Steve it took me forever to memorize all the strange rules about backcourt. I have read articles with 1k words trying to help explain every possible scenario. I love to talk about these with referees and just wanted to ask some questions to help make sure I make good back court violation calls. Can I ask what you saw? Was his feet were when he received the ball. That is the trick to helping make great back court calls.

If he is unsure what he saw then you know he missed it and thats the life of a new ref. If he saw it and applied the rules incorrectly you say. Thats tricky. Mind if I send some case book references after I study it tonight?

As for how to respond to him now. I am sorry. My point was not to embarass you. I should have discussed it with you later. It is not a game changing play and I dont need to come over to you for it. You are new and I was trying to help and over stepped my bounds. It will not happen again.

We have all done something like this. You might re-evaluate when you are going to help a rookie. He might never get better because he gets so defensive.

I hope none of this sounds like I am harping on you. Just my two cents.

Whomever told me to read Verbal Judo. Thanks again. Really helped my life and my refereeing and I strongly suggest it to every referee, heck every person out there to help every part of their life and communication with others.

I never question the calling official on this play if I "think" or "it looks like" the player didn't establish control. If there's even a .01% chance I saw it wrong, I'm not making any approach.

Wanting to "get the calls" right leads, eventually, to an official calling a 5 second throw in violation from 40 feet away because you don't think your partner is counting fast enough. Now, I have approached partners on BC calls in the past, but on both, the player gaining control didn't do so until he/she got to 30 feet into the BC. One was a pass out of the paint that was tipped by B in the lane and retrieved by A well into the BC. The other was a FC end line throw in that was tipped by A in the FC but retrieved by A almost at the other endline. On the first, I just let the T know the pass was tipped, he reversed his own call. On the second, I was working with a rookie and went up to see what she had seen. When she told me she saw it just as I did, I let her know the rule and we moved on correctly.

That said, if he still has a cob up his ass about the situation, I'd just write him off. Apologize (high road and all that) and move on. Block him if you want (I probably would) if he's that much of a dick about it.

Now, if you think he's legitimately asking how you interpret that rule, I would just tell him that providing information is not the same as overruling a partner.

That said, if he still has a cob up his ass about the situation, I'd just write him off. Apologize (high road and all that) and move on. Block him if you want (I probably would) if he's that much of a dick about it.[/QUOTE]

+1..Sadly like in life itself we run across partners who are dead heads with bad attitudes:(

Lots of good advice. My addition would be to calmly point out to him that you were not trying to overrule him at the time, and would never do that. You were simply bringing information to him. How he chooses to respond to that communication is up to him. My communication to him would be (name is made-up)...

"Mike, I was not trying to overrule you. If it came across that way, then I am sorry. I was just trying to bring you some information I thought was important at the time. Won't happen again."

I only bring information that is definitive. If you only "thought" you saw it one way then, IMO, you should wait until after the game (or halftime) and ask your partner what he had on that play.

I understand where you're coming from and I did not give the whole story as the coach saw it too and he became infuriated at the call. So my willingness to approach my partner was an attempt to assuage the situation and I gave my partner an out by asking him whether the player gained possession with one hand before going into the backcourt where he caught it with two hands. edit: I did not overrule him.

Unfortunately, I'm now having to address the fallout of an official who believes that the partner has no right to confer with his partner about his call. And now that I have reviewed the rulebook, none of the referee duties actually list a judgment on the play which means that it's not one of the things that cannot be questioned as this official believes it to be.

But again, I'm for a tactful response where I'm not being condescending but at the same time not willing to compromise on the principle that as a crew our main goal is to help each other out to get the call right.

I know I'm doing the old "hindsight-20/20" thing here, but probably a good opportunity for that young official to learn how to talk to coaches. Next time you have some sort of similar situation, you could go up to the youngun' and tell him to quickly explain to the coach what he has, "Coach, I had player control in the front court", then have him move out. Then if the coach persists on commenting, you can chime in with "Coach, my partner told what he had, now we need to move on."

I would also apologize as others have suggested.

I would also recommend a bit of follow up on your part, since you are the assigner for this particular group. Talk to some of the other officials you assign and see if they have had similar experiences with this guy.

Being a new official, you may want to have a heart-to-heart with him to persuade him to lose the defensive attitude, if you think there is enough potential there.

So your partner should have explained it to the coach and / or chosen to come to you for help. As I said before you can show body language / "the look" to try to get your partner to come to you.

Or, if you have to go to where he is to administer the throw-in, just ask your partner "everything okay?" or something to try to get him to open up for an explanation.

And, yes, it's tough to figure out what to do because every situation is a little different.

Yes, I definitely did apologize to him after the quarter was over. I also told him that as a crew of officials that we have the obligation of getting the call right. So where the situation is now is that this official believes that I was wrong based on the rulebook because of the reason I gave to him which led to my willingness to approach him during the game.

I will change up my way of addressing these situations during the game when I'm working with a sensitive official, but I want to make sure that this official understands the rulebook that he is now using to prove me and my approach wrong, which evidently is an incorrect interpretation. He merely focused on one rule (2-6) and did not read the corresponding rules thereafter. He is trying to say that I as a partner am never allowed to question him ever.

I understand that we are to trust our partners, but there is also the concern of making sure the call is right, especially when it's obvious. Additionally, I want to be able to exhibit myself on principle rather than having to once again kowtow to an inexperienced official who is trying to veil a "gotcha" attempt over a situation where I thought we both put it past us.

Now I don't want to be condescending or be an ass by not assigning him anymore games. I want him to be able to take responsibility as I did during the game. But I'm not sure how to address this as it was pretty disappointing to have received such an email from him.

If there is a situation where you need to give your partner some information, this needs to happen before the coach gets mad, not as a result of it.

Having started my second season, I try to tell partners in the pregame that if they see something obvious I miss, call it if necessary and then let's discuss it at halftime or post-game (so I can turn it into a learning experience).

So let me see if I have this all down correctly...

-You went to partner with info on a disputed call

-partner took offense to your coming to him

-you apologized to him at the game site

-he sent you a bitchy email in which he tries hard to find a rule book backing for his bitchiness

-you want our advice on how to deal with this situation

Is that about it???

If so, my advice would be to ask you a question...why, why, why would you want this guy working any game you assign?

Honestly, IMHO... this added information makes it worse. The fact that coach was barking at him when you decided to add information unsolicited... I can kind of see his ire coming up for that. If he ASKS you for information, that's different. But don't pile on when coach is on him already.

As to what to do now ... I'd be with the herd. Apologize (and I DO think you owe him one ... it's not just taking the high road now), and move on.

Honestly, responding to the coach's tirade in this manner is only going to inflame the situation. Now, he's more likely to throw a fit later. He also sees your response as disagreement with your partner's call. Your partner also feels like you betrayed him.

Now, your partner's rule quote is irrelevant, but I think his overall point is valid.

The rule reference may or may not have anything to do with the actual rule situation you experienced. But when you go to a partner, give them information, do not ask a question. If you know that the player did not have control of the ball and that was in your primary, then give that information and let him tell you there were other factors to the call. If you are not sure, then keep your mouth shut. A lot of times we "think" things and we do not have the entire story. I know the goal is to get it right, but there is a way to do it.

Now with the childish mail, I probably would not have responded. I probably would have had a phone conversation. Emails have ways of getting off the rails, especially with a newer official.

I am also not so sure about not working with this guy again. Just have a good pregame and discuss how you handle situations where you can help each other. Because if you say you do not want to work with this person, it is going to end up with the email exchange and the assignor asking, "What is with this?" We all work with people that we are not in love with and this would be no different. Do your job, be professional and move on.

Peace

I disagree. If he's kicking a rule and you know it, you're just as wrong for letting him kick it as he is for kicking it. You're not overruling or even questioning his judgement. Now, if you're questioning his judgement, that is wrong...but that isn't what we're talking about here. If he says the player controlled it in the front court, the call stands. If he says he only tipped it, then let him know what the rule is and that, by rule, it can't be a violation and leave it to him to take it from there.

I did exactly this a couple years ago with a partner who is probably in the top 2-3 in our association. Throwin on my frontcourt endline is tipped around the FT line (no where near control) and it went into the backcourt where the offense gets the ball. He called a backcourt violation. You can bet I went out to him. He was happy to fix it once I told him that we couldn't have a backcourt violation unless he judged that tip to be player control.

That is what I was going to say. Working to make sure we get calls right from a "not blowing it because we don't know the rules" standpoint is different than saying "Hey you shouldn't have called that" from 40 feet away. Change your own call with more information on a rule and me changing your call for you, they are two different things.

Difference being in your case you had definite knowledge. In the OP, he "thought" player didn't have control and he was about 40' from the play.

There's a HUGE difference between your play, where you're certain the other official made a rule error... and the OP where he thought that perhaps maybe the other official might be mistaken in judgement.

And to do it right after the coach started chewing strips away any semblance of credibility he could possibly have for the rest of that game, perhaps longer should he see this coach in the future. Don't neuter your partner.

Seemed like there was sufficient reason to believe his partner was kicking the rule.

And in my case, when it comes to judgement, there is no definite knowledge. Maybe my partner judged what I saw a as tip to be player control. To me it was obvious. But maybe he saw it differently. Unless I go out there to have the conversation, I would have never know and we'd have both got it wrong.

In the OP, so what if he used the word "thought". That what we judge on most of the time. He wasn't questioning the judgement of his partner, he was asking what his partner had. And if his partner said yes, there was player control, then the discussion was over. If the partner said no, then he should have then added the rule info and let his partner fix it.

Open Ended Question ...
 

Good advice. If you really want to correct a mistake while the game is going on, a good question to ask him would be, "Did you get a good look at that?" It's more of an open ended type question that lacks any specific details, and is less critical. If he answers, "Yes", then just move on, and maybe bring it up at halftime, or after the game. If he says, "No", or, "What did you have?", then give him the specifics and let him make the call, and live, or die, with it.

I still disagree. If my partner can't take the heat of getting a rule wrong, that is his problem. He should know the rules...we're not talking about some esoteric corner of the rule book here. If the coach is asking about it, all the more reason to be sure we get it right. He looks worse getting it wrong and not fixing it when he had the chance than he does for getting it right with help.

He wasn't questioning judgement. He was questioning the rule application. If the calling official judged that there was player control, the discussion is over at that point. If not, then we have a rules issue.

Unless you have the conversation, you can't know what he had.

Whoa, hold on, let's get the facts straight. The only reason why I said "I thought" is that I always leave room for doubt. That was my personal position. And that doubt was maybe that my partner saw that the player gained possession of the ball in the front court before catching it when stepping in the backcourt. I did specify in this thread on how I saw the play, in that the player touched the ball in the front court but caught the ball with both hands in the backcourt. And given that, I allowed my partner an out by asking him if the player gained possession of the ball with one hand, so even if I had absolute 100% knowledge that he was wrong, and I had the willingness to approach him, I would do it the same way, by asking him whether the player gained control of the ball in the front court.

What other way would you have addressed the situation when the coach is immediately asking you to confer with your partner when we all know that is what we're supposed to do? I wasn't going to tell the coach no I'm not going to ask him about the call, live with it coach.

And I don't understand why so many here are so antithetical to making sure we get the call right as a crew?

Secondly, why are still focused on this. I later said in this thread that I apologized to my partner for approaching him in the first place given that he took it personally, which as I've understood shouldn't even be an excuse as we're supposed to leave our egos at the door when we enter the gym.

My intention for this thread is how to approach situations where I can better present my considerations. I never asked how to overrule a partner as I would never intend to do that. And being an experienced official, I know there are times where I may come across as condescending, especially with newer officials. Hence my thread here.

And herein lies the problem.

If you've been officiating for any length of time at all (and I'm assuming you have - you are also an assignor), you know better. Any sport (perhaps other than football, where this gets relegated to the R). If the coach has a problem with a call, he needs to address it with the official who made the call. If the coach, as you say, asked you to confer, a good official would direct him to the other official. If your partner wants to confer, do so.

If you're going to stop down the game to discuss calls every time a coach asks you to confer with your partner on a call your partner made, you're in for a long long game (and your partner's credibility is toast).

"Coach, you'll have to ask him what he saw next chance you get."

IOW, I absolutely would tell him I'm not going to confer with my partner.

Where were you when the call was made? Where was the ball touched in the FC?

The answers to these questions will dictate the answer to "how" to approach your partner.

It took less than ten seconds for me to go up to him and ask him a simple question of whether the player gained possession in the front court or the backcourt, and after he answered I left it as that (even as he answered it with disdain) and I then directed the other team to throw in the ball at halfcourt. It's the partner's response and his veiled attempt to pin me down with the rulebook that is at issue here.

Personally, there are many times where I made an incorrect "out-of-bounds" call where my partner came up to me and asked if I saw it go off of 'so-and-so.' I can point to the many times with college and pro officials conferred with one another on a call. So if you're saying that as officials we should confer only when the calling official asks to confer then I would disagree. But I would only do it at rare times during the game where my partner might be kicking the rule, still though with no intention of overruling my partner.

So I guess before going further we must ask the question of how willing you are at maintaining the integrity of the game? If you believe that each individual's primary is solely to be judged by the official responsible then I guess we'll have to disagree on principle and leave it as that which means my followup question of how to approach your partner on certain calls would be moot.

Yeah but they likely do give information on what they "think." They give information on what they "know" and they have definite knowledge of what they saw. And that also comes when it is not strictly a judgment call. Judging player control sometimes is a judgment call. It would have been better if you told him what you saw instead of asking a question as you appeared to do in your OP.

This has nothing to do with the integrity of the game. We all have calls that someone might disagree with at some point in the game. That is very normal and OK. We cannot make every call perfect and certainly not perfect if you we all are not watching the same things.

Peace

Agreed, I will do that from now on. Thanks for the advice.


I did not say that I was willing to "correct" my partner at every opportunity. I was speaking against the mindset that my partner believed that I'm not to question his call no matter how egregiously incorrect it may be.

Maybe, but you asked a question. You were not giving definitive information.

At the end of the day you are a team and need to trust your partner. We already have people think we are always watching the same things. Now when a situation takes place that you did not clearly see and your partner did, do you think it would be a good idea to go to them or them to a definitive call has been made? I like the idea of getting calls right, but some take that concept too far and try to save every situation. The integrity of the game is not going to be shaped simply by one missed call.

Peace

I agree with your perspective wholeheartedly, JRutledge. I guess the factors that were at play during the game led me to making the decision of approaching my partner with the question that I had. Even though he responded contemptuously, I did not make it an issue, and came out of it supporting his call and giving his call more credibility as he "convinced" me with my own line where the player gained possession with one hand before going into the backcourt where he caught it with two hands.

And when we came together at the quarter, I told him that I did not intend to put him on the spot and try to overrule him, I just wanted to make sure he understood the rule where the backcourt violation only applies when the player has control before going to the backcourt. I thought that by apologizing and explaining myself to him that we put this behind us, but I guess that wasn't the case with the email I got.

Now, my intention with this thread is to better handle a situation where an official kicked a call and now being so hurt that I approached him, wants to pin me down and try to get one over me even after I apologized to him for how I approached him on his call.

Here we go, what Jeff said.

And as I said earlier, it would have been a time I would have told a less experienced partner to go explain (quickly) to the coach what and why the call was made.

I'm assuming this was a 2-man game. If I'm working 2-man game and I'm administering a throw-in on the end line I'm not going to have a solid look at what's going on at the division line.

That "solid look" only would apply if your partner knows the rule and it's a question of where possession was gained. How would you know that your partner knew the rule when such a situation occurred? Would you know whether he called it because the ball was merely touched in the front court which led him to call a backcourt violation?

I don't like leaving the play and merely telling the coach, "hey I guess we gotta live with it, though if you want to know exactly what happened ask him two or three plays after when he's tableside," implicitly saying that I know he got screwed and I'm not willing to help him out. Especially when I seeing these coaches on a weekly basis. That's not how I respect the integrity of the game. At the very least I will make sure that the controversial call where a rule might have been kicked is given adequate attention. And if my partner is as sensitive or adamant as my last partner was, I'll just let it go and tell him like I did at the quarter that as a crew we can confer with one another on the calls we have.

But usually on fouls I just let it go and talk with my parter at the half or at the end of the game if it was really bad. On violations like out-of-bounds or backcourt violations like these that are often kicked because refs think the player can't retrieve the ball in the backcourt on an inbounds after touching in the frontcourt, I'm often wanting to make sure my partner knows the rule and hopefully correct it right then and there.

I guess I've grown in a unit where it's considered OK to have your partner come up to you on a call you made as long as that partner leaves you to make the final decision on the play.

Why would you assume he didn't know the rule?

Because coming out of the timeout, I was standing at the three-point line near the baseline as I gave the go ahead to my partner I saw that the offensive player was straddling the division line, who then faked the opponent to get space but then backed up. And as he was backing up he caught the pass. Apparently, he caught the pass with one hand in the frontcourt, then went into the backcourt as he brought up the other hand to catch the ball before he started dribbling. I went up to my partner to be sure that's what he saw, not one where he touched the ball in the front court then gained possession of it in the backcourt.

1) Well, now you have a good pre-game topic of discussion for all the new guys your work with to make sure they know the throw-in/BC rule.

2) You used the word "apparently". Also, nobody told you to let the coach get screwed and have your partner explain the call 2-3 plays later. I specifically said to let your partner explain HIS call, and THEN move on with the game.

If it was me in your position and the coach was so inconsolable I would have said "Well Bob, he might have missed that one. We'll talk about what he saw after the game." Any response from me from that point on would have been "Let it go" or "We're moving on." I'm not letting a coach act an a$$ over a call that might have or apparently has been missed.

It's October, no one is getting screwed out of anything basketball related at this time of the year.

And we still don't know what your partner actually saw on the play; you haven't told us.

Where were his feet when he caught it? How could you see so clearly from the end line where his feet were? There's no way I'm doing anything in this play, to be honest, from the way you describe it.

Most likely, when the coach starts crying, I'm going to respond by just shaking my head as I go to put the ball in play. At most, he'll get a "You'll need to ask Bob when you get a chance." More likely, nothing. He doesn't get to ask for a conference on a play so obviously out of my realm just because he thinks the call was wrong.

I ask again, what made you think your partner didn't know the rule? You really haven't given that answer.

Again, I can't think of any way I would approach a partner on a violation call he made where all of the action took place in his primary coverage area.

You mentioned the need/desire to get the call right, and I can understand that, but I just don't see this play as something that needs addressed on the court. Ask him at second dead ball if you have a question about what happened. Calling 50 feet away should be reserved for making obvious calls that need to be made to "save the game", such as hard fouls and train wrecks. Trying to overturn a hair splitting violation? I wouldn't.

It does make for great post game conversation, though.

I did, and I stand by it (unless this went differently than I imagine in my head). I'm not delaying the game to have a partner explain a BC call to a coach who is, essentially, just asking me to overturn it. The fact that the coach is asking for a conference at all tells me he saw something in the official's face that indicated he disagreed with his partner. That might be wrong, but in my experience, that's normally when I've seen it.

It could be that the OP is simply a known commodity to the coach, and he wanted the OP to "talk to" his partner. I had a coach ask my partner to do that once when I called a T (I was new to town) in an AAU game.

Why would the lead have a better look at a backcourt call? That isn't yours. If you're watching his and he is watching his, who's watching yours?

So he was in the front court with possession, and went into the backcourt? If I'm reading this right, that's a backcourt. Just asking if I'm reading this right.

Huh, that sounds strangely like this play...

It seems to me that you guys are all focusing on this specific play way too much and using words and clichés to sway the argument to your own biased point of view before even considering the play. As a 10 year official, it should be expected that your peripheral vision is at use, and that just because it's your secondary it doesn't prohibit you from taking action on a particular play.

So let me be real specific in regards to the play just to entertain this discussion, which really isn't the main point of the this read. And then I'll address each of the individual points thereafter.

First off, this was an AAU/club team fall league tournament. So the games kind of mattered for these guys. And as an assignor for the region these teams pretty much know me by now. But having said that I'm an assignor doesn't mean that I know better on all plays, so I'm here to learn as well.

Secondly, it was the first play out of a timeout. As Lead, I decided to play up as this defense likes to apply pressure and my partner has a reluctance at hustling and standing strong side on the sideline wouldn't look good. So if you were to draw this up in your head I was standing a little bit lower than where a Center would usually be standing opposite the Trail. If this was a Varsity game, I would have been standing below the baseline, strong-side. But given the type of game and my partner, I decided it would be prudent to stand table-side and start off the play as a pseudo-center.

The coach was standing a few feet up along the same sideline I was, around the 28' line on the same half I was standing.

Before the play resumed the defense was already up, one matchup was below the line from where I was standing. The offensive player or really the point guard needed to gain separation from his defender so he juked towards the basket and then backed up. As he backed up the pass was made as the defender was still recovering. The point guard's feet when he touched the ball was in the front court, but he definitely did not grab the ball with two hands until he was in the backcourt. Only the coach understood this as everyone thought that since the player was in the frontcourt where he initially touched the ball that even though he was in the backcourt when he caught it, it wasn't a backcourt violation.

Now if you've watched basketball enough, the play that I saw is easy to imagine. And since this was a youth level game there wasn't much in my area to watch coming out of a timeout. The point guard tried to get position with his arm outstretched as the target, but his teammate wasn't confident in passing it to him. So the PG decides to make a juke towards the basket but then back up to create space as the defender recovers. Now the PG as he backed up got the pass with his right hand but never caught it until going into the backcourt. The way he caught it was that he was backing up but when he touched the ball he turned his back to protect the ball. So imagining all that would be a quick jab towards the defender and the basket, sidestep back and essentially face your teammate who's throwing in the ball, touch the ball with one hand, turn your back to protect the ball as you catch it.

Standing where the Center usually stands made it easy to see this as the play was pretty much within my vision. The unfortunate part was how the play ended.

The way I saw it was that the offensive player touched the ball with his right hand as he approached the division line with his left foot in the frontcourt as he stepped his right foot in the backcourt, so when he lifted his left foot it looked like it was a backcourt violation, but his right foot was there in the backcourt before he possessed it. That right foot was clear as day as it was used to turn towards the basket and towards me and the coach.

The reason why I admitted to my doubt in this thread was because I thought you all would be able to understand this situation where you're never sure of a call in the absolute sense and when it comes to a call your partner made you always give your partner the benefit of the doubt. Instead I'm feeling like you guys want me to be wrong here so you load up your statements to make appear to be so even though you making it up along the way.

So when I went up to him, I already had the two scenarios in my mind. The coach was the only other person who made it evident that he knew the rule coupled with a plain view from his position, and since this is an AAU game in an empty gym his voice carried and it was clear everyone heard him say "he didn't gain possession until he was in the backcourt." To let such a play go without addressing it would be foolish. I had to go up to my partner, especially since I'm assigning these games. And even if, and as I did, allowed my partner's call to stand, I still would have the opportunity to go up to the coach and say, as I did, that I listened to what my partner had to say and I agreed with his call. And the coach for this game was satisfied with that as he gave me a thumbs up as I hustled back down to the other end. These are not varsity coaches and they understand how officiating at the AAU level works they just don't want to a possible correctable situation to be ignored.

The coach knew it was clearly a situation where his team did not gain possession until in the backcourt and from where I was standing that looked to be true. But I have a habit of inserting doubt even when it doesn't seem to look necessary, and in this case that doubt helped me give my partner the opportunity an out as I wanted to defend him. Unfortunately, I was working with a guy who has a chip on his shoulder and finds it offensive to question his authority even by someone who is assigns him youth level games.

When I went up to my partner I asked him first if the player gained control before going into the backcourt. He said yes. I then asked followed up by asking, "so he gained possession of the ball with one hand before catching it in the backcourt?"

Now given the feedback I got from you all in this thread, I should have approached him in a different way even though wording this was difficult as I didn't want to seem like I was overruling him. Unfortunately I wasn't able to escape what I feared, and my partner's response to the second question was that I was making it awkward and I should stop questioning his call.

Disclaimer: this official has a great bball IQ and during his first year and showed tremendous upside. Unfortunately something happened to him last year where he had a couple of no-shows and as a result of it, he started having a chip on his shoulder, gained weight, showed up late (even to this game), and wasn't willing to hustle as well as he used to. So I had a sympathetic heart and wanted to see him recover from where he was, so I understand why he was feeling defensive. And I unfortunately crossed a personal line of his.




As I stated, I apologized at the end of the quarter to him for how I crossed that line of his. And he admitted that he took it a bit personally. But I did also mention the principle that as an official that I lived by which was that as a crew we are obligated to make sure we get the call right and even though I may approach my partner under rare and certain circumstances, my intention is to never overrule my partner. It seemed everything was cool at that point as we shook hands and let that be.

Unfortunately that was not the case with the email that I received from him questioning me on the basis of the rules and how I'm not supposed to confer with my partner about his call. So I backtracked from the start and shared this to you all in this thread so that I could go through it step by step and see where my particular mistake was. Again, unfortunately, we couldn't step beyond the play and discuss on principle where and when we're supposed to confer on a call as a crew.

Yes, only that the pass was made where the referee was standing and that there was no "fumble;" he just touched the ball in the front court, but grabbed the ball with two hands in the backcourt. The body movement and everything is very similar to this play though.

edit: Just imagine it to be on the other side of the court, left foot down clearly in the front court as he touched the ball with his right hand. Right foot comes down on the line as he shifts his left foot back behind the division line, pivoting with his right foot to protect the ball with his body, then pivoting towards the tableside in order to face the basket and make a move.

When your partner is late and you gotta spend the first ten minutes checking pictures of the teams there's no time to go through particular violations. Besides, why would you think this would be acceptable to such a person when he's not willing to consider your points during the game? Going over the rules as a "pre-game" seems just as condescending.


The word was used to describe what my partner saw, and what my partner saw was what I considered to be actual as I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The concern that I had going forward from this play was not giving the coach the opportunity to possibly correct the call by conferring with my partner.

He wasn't "inconsolable." In fact he was quite understanding, but his immediate reaction was quite heated. He responded by saying: "That's not a backcourt violation; he didn't gain possession until he was in the backcourt; you gotta change that call ref." I responded to him by saying I'll ask what my partner saw, which I did, even though I insisted too much.

Unfortunately, you don't know how AAU works. Teams pay money to play in these tournaments, so yes having a bad crew does leave a feeling of being screwed. But this was one call and I don't believe that this particular call screwed them all that much. And giving more attention to the call was sufficient for the coach despite the fact that it went against him in the end.

Because I asked him with a yes or no question of whether the player controlled the ball in the frontcourt before going into the backcourt. He said yes both times I asked.

You did all this over a backcourt call? And during an AAU game? I am sure you realize the number of times a coach will question a call, knowing or not knowing a rule? I have to admit that if you did that in a game with me, I would probably shake your hand as well during the game and probably never want to work with you again. I assume after the player caught the ball and after the coach said what he said, you blew your whistle and ran toward your partner and did your questioning, is that right? If so, then yes, that is awkward, especially over a backcourt call. And then you got the thumbs up sign from the coach. Are you sure you are officiating to the game as you state and not to the coaches pleasure? Your determination to get every call right can hamstring the crew when you become over officious and start to stop play on judgmental calls such as this backcourt call. Afrosheen, this past season I did this very thing in a game and and my take away was I did not trust my partners and was swayed by the coaches reaction. Bad move! I trust my partners, regardless of their experience, 1st year to 20 year vet, trust your partners. That is my take away. I want to commend your partner for getting into the mechanics book and rule book, he did some homework before writing that email. That took guts, especially sending it to his assignor, kudos to him. Okay, that is my $0.02. Good night

Left foot in the frontcourt, right foot in the backcourt. I stood a couple steps below where the Center would stand. That's your approach, to which I disagree as I believe the integrity of the game requires it.

"Out of your realm" isn't the way the rulebook describes your secondary. It shouldn't be out of your realm. If a felony occurred in your secondary, and your partner did not call it, you better pick it up as that would be a travesty as to have two officials not call something something egregious would be extremely embarrassing. And when it comes to approaching your partner, I've been taught approach your partner when it's only absolutely necessary like when you got info that he may not have considered, which this play fits the bill.

He's an inexperienced official, with a troubled past who at times kicks calls during the game and likes to call three seconds in the key a lot, which I told him that could be more of a preventable call if he's willing to communicate to players. I expect the officials who are working varsity games to know the rules. When I'm working AAU games, I'm expecting the opposite, especially when I'm working with 2 or 3 year officials.


So you don't call anything ever in your secondary? Well that's unfortunate, and I guess if I was your partner, I would have be extremely concerned not to miss anything in my primary as my partner isn't going to be willing to pick up anything that I might miss.


Well I guess Tom Izzo in the play recorded above would hope that you'd not ref his game as he would have not been fortunate enough to have an official confer with his partner on a missed call in order to get it right.

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.

A hit and run post. Nothing more need be said about this one.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. All of this.

I beg to differ on this. My 9-to-5 job is 5 minutes from the Boo Williams Sportsplex, meaning I work and watch plenty of AAU ball. I am personal friends with the local AAU assignors, so I get to hear all the behind the scenes conversations concerning the coaches and officials, including when officials are at fault and when the coaches are at fault. And the national coorindator for AAU officials sits in that building every weekend during AAU season.

In a situation like yours, none of the powers that be would want another official questioning his partner based the reaction of an AAU coach. We go to our partners for one reason, to provide definite information. If I know a rule is being kicked, I will pull my partner away from the bench area and discuss it with him. But in the end, it will still be up to my partner to adjudicate as he sees fit.

In a college camp this past summer (during a high level AAU tournament) I had a play where I had the crew administer the throw-in at the wrong spot after my own inadvertent whistle. The most experienced official, by far, on the crew, tried to get me to change my mind but I was hard-headed. He didn't make a scene or extend the conversation, he just let me have my way. But, after the game he jumped in my a$$ and so did an off-duty observor who was watching the game.

Now, if your partner is too sensitive to handle post-game criticisms or critiques from you, in your capacity as an assignor, then maybe he is not somebody who should be getting games from you. But during the game, you are just an official, just like him.

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.

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.

Ironically, you replied to the post where I encourage my partner to confer to me when I'm egregiously wrong or I kick a call. So this idea that I'm being self-righteous or condescending in being an advocate of conferring with one another is just another made up bullcrap to prove your own point.

Look at the video that AremRed posted last night where Tom Izzo's team gets screwed on a backcourt call. Are you really saying that the other refs should not have conferred with him about the call? Mind you these are professional officials who are supposed to be at the very best, and yet they get calls wrong too.

To suggest that because a guy is a newer official, I must "baby" him until he feels man enough before going up to him talking through a call is absolutely ridiculous. You guys must be the most sensitive bunch to absolutely work with if I can't come up to and ask or give something for you to consider.

Now I have mentioned many times in this thread that I will reevaluate my approach, and evidently, those of you who are adamant to continue criticizing me will continue to ignore it so what's the point really to say that. But as a man of principle, I will not prohibit myself from telling my partner what I have or ask whether he saw what I saw.

Everything else in your post beyond this though is merely a character assault to prove your own argument and merely an exercise of self-aggrandizement.

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

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.

JRutledge, I don't know what to say to you now. I explicitly stated that I accepted your particular advice and stated my appreciation for it. Asking for advice does not mean that I must then accept everything. And since this is a forum after all, I would have thought you all would have understood that by now that it is a place of discussion.

Secondly, as I have mentioned many many times in this thread, I apologized to the official for making him feel uncomfortable and I told him in my email that I will consider his feelings now that he doesn't like to be approached.

So this statement where you say this…

… is absolutely false, as I apologized to him during the game, and in his emails I distinguished the rules from his personal preference in that I will leave him alone during the games now that I know that he's uncomfortable in having me approach him.

How are you from all of that reading that I'm defending my actions? Honestly, this is getting ridiculous.


I will appreciate advice if the people giving it are not being disingenuous and making stuff up to fit their own view of things. Is that too much to ask?

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

It wasn't solely on the basis of the coach's reaction. He reacted before I even got to my partner so really that was not at issue. I merely brought it up to say that instead of giving him a T, I told him that I would talk to my partner about it so he would calm down as I went up to my partner to fetch the ball.

After I talked to my partner, I didn't chew him out after the quarter was over. I in fact apologized to him as I've stated many many many times in this thread. Though it was a conditional apology, and because it was a conditional apology this official sought to invalidate the conditional by trying to prove my reasoning wrong with a lazy attempt at reading the rulebook.

As I said at the beginning I am not willing to cut a guy, or admonish a guy or be extreme in any way. I guess I'm more self-critical than most people where I should be giving myself credit for not being as rude like your partner and the observer who chewed you out on a kicked call.

I just wanted to know how you all used the opportunity to confer with your partner on a egregiously kicked call, like the one that AremRed posted earlier from a game with Tom Izzo. I would hope everyone here would be as willing as the officials in that game of conferring with the calling official and give the calling official to opportunity to correct his mistake to get the call right.

However, as I just experienced, there are many hard headed officials, and I'm not going to overrule my partner if he's too prideful to correct his mistake. I'll be willing to eat it and tell the coach that he should ask my partner if it's something that I can't defend.

But I'm not going to accept that because the official is young or inexperienced that I'm not going to go up to him and gently talk to him about the call in the most prudent way without making him feel rejected or ashamed on the spot.

Well you keep saying you apologized to him as if that made everything else right that you did before. That is my point to you. You were given advice as to what happened and instead of just saying "OK I can see that" or "Now I understand that point of view" you want to debate what you did as if he had no right to be upset with your initial questioning. And I said both of you handled this wrong in the long run. He could have responded initially better to you and not been as confrontational for sure. This was not all on you if you have been paying attention. Your actions just initiated the confrontation.

I do not need to say anything to fit a point of view. You seem to already know what was best, so why come here and ask at all? If you have it figured out, then do you. Once again you came here with this situation, not me.

Peace

Back to the original question.

In my games I only go to my partners if I am 100% sure they got a call wrong and I am providing information that I 100% know they didn't have in making their call.

If I know my partner is kicking a rule, I will go up to them and tell them something to the effect of "trust me, I know I'm right on this."

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.

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

And with that I'm done.

Could you please tell me why any lead would be in the C position, while working two man mechanics? This seems that you didn't trust your partner to be able to officiate his area. I would probably be upset also. Once again, while your watching the inbounds play at half court, who is watching your primary?

I'm coming back to your original post. You've seemingly got two questions here. First, how to address his email. I would simply tell him that the rule itself is interpreted to mean you cannot overrule a partner's call. It does not mean you cannot approach a partner to discuss a call. If he's not receptive to feedback, that's another issue.

As for your final question, that's what we've been addressing. With rookie partners, I may expand my area a bit, but only to make calls that need made, not to talk them out of calls.

You talk about the integrity of the game, but let me ask, what do you think hurts the integrity of the game more?

1. Allowing a marginal BC call to stand that may or may not be wrong.
2. Destroying your partner's credibility by approaching him on a borderline BC call that, for all you know, is a difference in judgment rather than a rule error.

I know now, I think, why the coach was going crazy. He saw you going to approach your partner to question the call.

Exactly, which is why none of your posts answered the central question of the thread.

You're assuming a little too much with that last sentence. But regardless, I appreciate you're willingness to consider the entirety of my original post.

I agree with you that marginal stuff should not be questioned and that they're supposed to be stuff that should discussed during the half in closed quarters if at all, which is what I do.

But let me ask you, should the referees in Tom Izzo's game not have gone up to their partner on such a missed call? I don't consider that call to be marginal as it a complete kick of the rule.

OK I'm sorry if I misunderstood your posts. Thanks for clarifying.

Though I do not want this to mean that approaching my partner is the wrong thing to do. The way I did it to this particular partner was probably not the best way to do it, as I said before. I will reevaluate it and reconsider how I approach my partners from now on.

My bottom line to you is simple: Be very, very, very selective in when you decide to offer your partner help. Your overly long post as to the specifics of the play are irrelevant. I will accept that your partner made a mistake. The time to "fix it" is at a timeout or after the game. As the assignor,you have the ultimate ability to fix it: do not assign him any more games.

I have been on both sides of this situation. Very early in my career, I called a violation on the jumper for hitting the ball twice. My partner said and did nothing until after the game, when he told me two taps is legal; three is illegal. I never forgot every part of that: the correct rule and how well my partner handled my error. I try to do the same when I am paired with less experienced officials. I help them (if they want) only at half time and after the game. It works perfectly for us and for the teams. (And yes...I work a lot of AAU games.)

You really need to back off. You were wrong. You were wrong to go to your partner in the first place. You were wrong in both what you said and how you said it. And to be brutally honest, you were wrong to assign him the game, given your knowledge of his work habits.

As for your partner's email....take it with a grain of salt. He clearly does not have the understanding of the full scope of the rules. But he is 100 percent right in his basic point: you cannot overturn his call. And that's what you tried to do at the gym...and what you have tried to do on this forum.

You did not come here for advice or help. You wanted validation for your actions and when you didn't get it, you became annoyed. I suggest you listen a lot more to what is being posted here and type a lot less.

Here is the best example of how not to provide advice to someone soliciting one. You disregard the many posts where I explicitly said that I was wrong in the way that I approach my partner, and with that said, I also stated that I will reconsider it. Here's a link to an example.

But that was not enough you. You needed to come into this thread and whack away with your hammer and point to every instance where you think I was wrong (which seems to include breathing) and then perform a psycho-babble of a post to make yourself feel better than you took five minutes of your day to understand why I'm objecting to people who aren't willing to understand the point of being a crew of officials. And then you have the audacity to tell me to back off after the way you tried to undress me here. It's as the cognitive dissonance shown here is to be seen as a joke. Unfortunately that isn't the case here.

I'm glad that there was a video here shown where an Div 1 NCAA ref goes up to his partner and makes him reconsider the backcourt violation. He showed how calmly he approached his partner and allowed him to make the final call.

Evidently, the people here think to do that is disrespectful. I appreciate that you told me this, but I disagree with it. And it seems that I have ruffled your feathers by saying that I disagree with you, which really isn't a surprise to me.

Afro, you wrote several times that posters here were focusing on the play itself, whereas you were interested in how to deal with your partner. I understand that.

However, the first 18 posts of this thread (not counting yours) are focused on how you should have dealt with your partner. The posters here told you what they thought, and then moved on to examining the play itself. It's kinda like a reverse hierarchy -- once the "big" questions are answered posters move on to the "small" stuff -- like debating the specifics of the play that caused your situation in the first place, or the "nitty gritty" as you mentioned here:

I have learned that the more you write about the play, the more opportunity there is for someone here to criticize you. Why? It's the nature of clarity -- the more words we write (after a certain point), the less clear we become. Officiating, and the call your partner made, is based on judgement. And if you open up discussion of the play by detailing everything that took place, you are going to receive criticism of your judgement and rules knowledge.

If you wanted to focus on the man-management aspect of your situation, I think it was a mistake to flesh out the specifics of the original play.

Read what MD Longhorn wrote again. He was saying "members of this forum were repeatedly saying you were wrong" about how you were approaching other officials. The "repeatedly [telling] him he was wrong" did not refer to how you approached your partner in the OP.

Yes, AremRed, I see now with your post how this blew up and I flamed the fire. I guess I got too used to talking with the officials I usually work with and thought the same mindset would be seen here.

I apologize to everyone here for misleading you. I appreciate the feedback even though I may not have agreed with all of it. I thought that we could have a civil discussion without making it personal, but that again was my fault for expressing that faith in complete strangers on an internet forum.

No problem Afrosheen. I have fanned the fire on a couple threads that got off the topic I wanted to talk about. I sincerely hope you stick around here and engage in more discussion, it just takes a little while to understand the culture here.

No harm, no foul. I apologize if you think I was being personal.

One thing I've definitely found here --- I learn more posting here than discussing in groups at clinics or between games and the like. Why? Because when you're discussing things in your own circle, people are more likely to just go with the flow, and less likely to say something that might ruffle a feather (perhaps moreso in your case since you have authority over them! How many officials who rely on you to schedule would be willing to say, "Hey boss, you kind of stepped on your partner there"? Likely none of them, even if they ALL thought it.). Here, people will give you the honest truth, an honest opinion of your actions. Take it for what it's worth - there are a lot of very very good, very very smart officials here. And don't assume all criticism is personal.

You seem to be doing a lot of "whacking away" yourself. First you tell me I don't know how AAU works. And repeatedly you've told other posters they don't know how communicate within the confines of this forum. Now to top it off, you make a completely assinine statement that all us of here think the Tom Izzo scenario was handled in a disrepectful manner. The Tom Izzo scenario and you scenario have nothing to do with each other. Plus, in the Tom Izzo play, we see for ourselves how it was handled; in your play we only have your side of the story, which gets modified every time you don't like a response.

My assumption is based on experience. Our response as partners can lead to a lot of trouble. If a caoch is already on edge about a call, and you start walking towards the calling official, he's going to assume you saw it his way and try to encourgage you to overturn the call or "talk to" your partner.

I have to say, from what I've read, you seem to have been pretty focussed on the division line when you were at the lead position. I just can't imagine even looking up there on that play unless I didn't trust my partner at all.

I don't recall the play you're talking about with Izzo.

Some officials just have egos so big that even if they kick the call, they'll make something up to cover their butt when they wing it and get it wrong. I've seen it all too many times. Sounds like this guy is one of those. He was more worried about his ego than being a cooperative partner.

Yes, and I didn't want to badmouth him on this forum as I wanted to continue to respect him. And I wasn't intending this thread to be about me and my partner but about how the officials here handle similar situations. But I guess that was the unfortunate sacrifice that got lost in everything.

My problem? That you whine so much about "personal attacks" yet have no problem making partonizing a$$ comments like this:

What kind of pompous official thinks other officials don't know how AAU basketball works?

Talking to my partner should not mean that he suddenly loses credibility from it though. He's a human being first and he and me and everyone here will inevitably make mistakes. And I said before, I hope I have a strong enough partner who will be willing to catch my mistakes as I personally do not want a mistake of mine leave an adverse impact on the game.


Why are you so concerned with this play anyways? Regardless of what happened, if it's a controversial call that may have been due to a kicked rule, that doubt should be addressed. That is my opinion, though if you have a differing opinion, I'll be willing to hear it, I just won't necessarily agree with it though.

AremRed posted a video of a similar play in the last page where officials were conferring with one another which I said was similar in how the play happened in my game.

Because you think a bad call in one game isn't as severe as a bad call in another game. Which to me is an insensitive comment to the hard working parents who pay their hard earned money to then invest time during the week practicing to play the games on the weekends. Kids and families plan their lives around these games, and dismissing these games the way you did is a mark of unprofessionalism.

Making excuses about why you don't have pre-games before each of these games is a sign of what? Those games aren't as important or they (and you) would pay officials as much as the more important games. They play in a new tournament every weekend. It is "off-season" basketball. And the fact that you put people that you don't trust on the games shows that you don't think very much of the games yourself.

And still, that has nothing to do with the fact that you said, without knowing me, that I don't know how AAU works. You made a personal assessment of me, yet 1/2 your posts here complain about people making it "personal" towards you.

[QUOTE=Afrosheen;

I'm glad that there was a video here shown where an Div 1 NCAA ref goes up to his partner and makes him reconsider the backcourt violation. He showed how calmly he approached his partner and allowed him to make the final call.

Evidently, the people here think to do that is disrespectful. I appreciate that you told me this, but I disagree with it. And it seems that I have ruffled your feathers by saying that I disagree with you, which really isn't a surprise to me.[/QUOTE]

Mistakes are made at all levels...and I don't think anyone here is advocating not communicating effectively..key word effectively..which means that TIME and PLACE do matter in communications.

Further, there are some really great minds with tons and tons of experience on this blog who are generous with sharing their knowledge and experience. You may not agree with it all and yes some comments include tuff love but realize that its not personal and the goal behind the comments is to be helpful.

Shorter Discussion ...
 

This is a far as I would have gone, with the addition of:

You: Nice call.

He didn't kick a rule, he made a judgment call and he was the primary and closer to the play than me, so that's all I'm saying to him on this particular play. Now, if he kicked the rule by confusing a throwin exception, for example, then I might spend a few more seconds discussing the play with him.

Maybe it shouldn't, but it tends to; especially with AAU coaches. Everyone knows we make mistakes, that's not in dispute; nor is it relevant.

I hope to have a strong enough partner that I can focus on my area without worrying about his. Honestly, I would have never even seen the play in your OP. Not from the end line. If I'm at the point where I don't trust him on BC violations from the lead position, I'm probably just trying to prevent a brawl.

And honestly, it's not the "talking" that decreases your partner's credibility. It's your body language that makes it exceedingly clear to the coach that you disagreed with the call.

Because the details of the play matter when it comes to how or whether I would have approached my partner. Like I've said, there are times I have approached a partner to discuss a BC call (once in my very first varsity game), but none of them involved a play that took place entirely in my partner's PCA (this isn't even the lead's secondary area) within such close proximity to the division line.



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.

I would have a much more detailed conversation in the locker room about a play that a coach brought to my attention. And I did not get the opportunity during the time on the floor. So saying "Nice call" does not get to the point of us learning or teaching from the situation, especially when you are dealing with a younger official. Even if I had a tough call I would ask my partners if they saw something I missed or they had a different angle.

Peace

"Player Having Possession Of The Ball" ...
 

He makes it quite clear what he saw.

I think that it's got all the requirements of a backcourt violation. Two important things can get screwed up with this situation. Knowing the exception for the throwin, and knowing when player control takes place in the front court. He got them both right, using the proper "rule" language. Why discuss it further? Play on.

Perhaps I've made a bad assumption on this play but I was commenting on this play assuming the throwin was administered by the OP from one of his lines and it was 100% his responsibility to watch the ball on the throwin so he could chop in the time. That would mean that he would have to be looking right at the play.

If that is not the case, then I do agree he really shouldn't be looking that far out of his primary and, if he was really doing his job, he would have never seen the play to even have an opinion on the play.

I am really not talking about just discussions of this specific play. If you were paying attention I said that if there was a real question that would be a conversation in the locker room either at halftime or after the game (maybe at the bar), but not on the floor. Partners I work with typically embrace speaking about plays and situations we dealt with in the game. And often asking about situations we did not see or did not have direct knowledge of as it was not in our primary or something a coach commented to us about. Almost never a big deal and almost never anyone gets upset by these discussions. Again, this is how we get better or know what actually happen.

Peace