Where problems start... (video)

[Nevadaref]

I'm okay with just the OOB call on the first play. I can see deeming that incidental contact as both players go for the ball from about equal positions and neither is placed at a disadvantage.
However, one needs to then be alert and observe these two players (the ones who tangled on the first play) closely for the next few minutes.
In a 3-man crew, there shouldWorst thing that I saw this week was Dustin Hall screaming in Skip's ear with about 1:30 left and not getting penalized. Your crew was in the lockerroom preparing for the next contest. It wasn't a positive moment for the local officials group to tolerate that behavior. never be an unobserved competitive matchup.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm okay with just the OOB call on the first play. I can see deeming that incidental contact as both players go for the ball from about equal positions and neither is placard at a disadvantage.
However, one needs to then be alert and observe these two players (the ones who tangled on the first play) closely for the next few minutes.
In a 3-man crew, there should never be an unobserved competitive matchup.

My thoughts as well.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm okay with just the OOB call on the first play. I can see deeming that incidental contact as both players go for the ball from about equal positions and neither is placard at a disadvantage.
However, one needs to then be alert and observe these two players (the ones who tangled on the first play) closely for the next few minutes.
In a 3-man crew, there should never be an unobserved competitive matchup.

Yeah, it's easy to say there should've been something in retrospect, but absent the subsequent nonsense...it's just an OOB call.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm okay with just the OOB call on the first play. I can see deeming that incidental contact as both players go for the ball from about equal positions and neither is placed at a disadvantage.

Originally Posted by AremRed

My thoughts as well.

Originally Posted by Rich

Yeah, it's easy to say there should've been something in retrospect, but absent the subsequent nonsense...it's just an OOB call.

I'm going to respectfully disagree. After the ball is knocked away Black #11 reaches from behind - and through - White #12 and displaces him. It doesn't help matters that after the whistle White #12 swipes back at Black #11.

This isn't Monday Morning QBing on my part. When Nikki sent me the video I didn't know what I was looking for at first so I watched the entire raw clip (it was about five minutes long). When I saw Play #1 I thought that might have been the issue until I saw Play #2.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by deecee

They are both looking right at the action.

They are both looking right at the action.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying they're not looking at it, but T maybe doesn't want to come so far to call the 3 or 4 fouls leading up to the big ones from as far away as he is and lead is looking across the paint. C seems completely focused on the ball. I was told all 3 officials said they didn't see what happened until white 12 was on the ground.

I'm not saying your'e wrong, I'm just saying putting yourself in a better (correct) position makes it easier to call the foul(s) and prevent the subsequent actions.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nikki

C seems completely focused on the ball. I was told all 3 officials said they didn't see what happened until white 12 was on the ground.

C's tunnel vision was a big problem. He has a match-up in front of him but it's not even close to being competitive. A1 is holding the ball and given that C isn't counting I'll assume B1 was more than six feet away from A1. The next competitive match-up is the wrestling match ten feet to his right. A look over there - even for a second or two - wasn't going to hurt since it was apparent A1 wasn't going anywhere.

L was in virtually the same situation. The match-up in his PCA wasn't competitive...to the point that he was looking across the lane as was mentioned before. If he's looking across the lane and all three said they didn't see the take-down until White #12 hit the floor that means the L was watching the ball.

[rockyroad]

Bottom line - after the "extra-curricular" stuff that happened between those two knuckleheads earlier, a member of this crew should have had those two in his sights at all times.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

C's tunnel vision was a big problem. He has a match-up in front of him but it's not even close to being competitive. A1 is holding the ball and given that C isn't counting I'll assume B1 was more than six feet away from A1. The next competitive match-up is the wrestling match ten feet to his right. A look over there - even for a second or two - wasn't going to hurt since it was apparent A1 wasn't going anywhere.

L was in virtually the same situation. The match-up in his PCA wasn't competitive...to the point that he was looking across the lane as was mentioned before. If he's looking across the lane and all three said they didn't see the take-down until White #12 hit the floor that means the L was watching the ball.

If I was presenting this to a group, I would focus first on the L's failure to rotate. There is no good reason whatsoever for the L to not be over on the other side of the court. The C should never be on ball when there's an opportunity for the L to come across and make the C the T instead. There's no reason for the C to have to be on ball AND watch that competitive matchup closer to the end line.

Watching crews, this is the one thing I wish I could drill home -- I think it's partially from the fact that so many people here still work a fair amount of 2-person and that it's not common here for 2-person lead officials to work ball side.

[Lcubed48]

I agree with the comments made on the crew mechanics in this OP. I have a couple of other comments after having viewed the clip on a computer.

Play #1 - The trail is inside of the ball line when the play begins. He has a good view of the action initially, but when the defender closes he can't see the remainder of the play. I've been taught that outside of the ball line is the place to be. There isn't enough in this clip to see how the T got where he was.

Play #2 - I noticed that when the play "blows up" all three officials go to the action. No one stays away to observe.

I'm not pointing fingers here because I was involved in a play this season where the entire crew (including yours truly) didn't function (i.e. - communicate) as we should have or as we pre-gamed.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Rich

If I was presenting this to a group, I would focus first on the L's failure to rotate. There is no good reason whatsoever for the L to not be over on the other side of the court. The C should never be on ball when there's an opportunity for the L to come across and make the C the T instead. There's no reason for the C to have to be on ball AND watch that competitive matchup closer to the end line.

Watching crews, this is the one thing I wish I could drill home -- I think it's partially from the fact that so many people here still work a fair amount of 2-person and that it's not common here for 2-person lead officials to work ball side.

Great points. Just before Play #2 turned into a wrestling match six of the players were on the strong side of the court and the L was still opposite. Instead of rotating he just stands there looking across the lane and, presumably, at the ball since he didn't see the confrontation. It really looked like a two-person setup at that point given his position and the high position taken by the C.