Difficult partners (long post... Sorry)

Couple thoughts:

1. your problems could also be a result of calling 6 games with the same crew.

2. From the way you describe things perhaps the R and the other guy are sitting on some other forum writing the same "Difficult Partner" stuff about you. You said you had to 'calm down' -- crew disputes always need to be handled calmly and tactfully, especially if you are working with people you don't know very well. Even if you are 'right' in the way you are calling things, sometimes you need to defer to the assigned R. He's the assigned crew chief (presumably, you didn't give much background) and the crew needs to march to the beat of his drum. If you have problems with the way he wants things done then report him after the game.

3. Probably not a smart idea to talk to some "other officials" at the site about your partner problems. Find one or two guys you trust and talk to them, or post here on The Forum™.

4. If you pregamed to get together with the nearest official after a tech and don't do it you can't get mad if your partner calls you out on it. Still wasn't the right time or place to call you out though.

[Sharpshooternes]

I am really afraid we are going to have the same issue in our association with the old timers as you describe: them continuing to not call hand checks and not wanting to change. I think the rule change is great for the game.

The secondary problem I see happening is that me calling them and the other two partners not calling them makes the crew look bad. I am hoping though that the coaches recognize who is right and it won't hurt in the long run. Hopefully they will get after officials who arent calling it, since they have likely spent a lot of time couaching thier kids on it.

I also have high hopes that our new varsity assigner will get people to do it or show em the highway. I really hope it improves our games.

[Texref]

Thanks for feedback. Reflection wise I probably should have handled the T the way we discussed. No excuse on that. Was looking more for how/when he approached me.

The comments to "other" officials in the room were made in reference to two that approached me. I did talk to a trusted official on the drive home from tourney.

[Smitty]

I'm not sure what part of Texas you're from, or which chapter you're in, but your one side of the story doesn't make it seem like you may have been the best partner to work with either. Maybe things happened exactly as you described, but it just comes off sounding like a young, inexperienced complainer. Talk to your assigner if you really think this guy was not following the protocol you were expected to follow. In my chapter, crew chiefs aren't assigned blindly.

[Rich]

No, to me it sounds like some older guys who are going to keep on calling the game the way they always have. Give a warning on contact on the ball-handler?

Above, I see a post that says that the R is the boss. No, that's not the case everywhere. Here, the R is simply the person who does the book and (usually) tosses the ball up and administers the throw-in at the start of quarters. The R can't tell a U how to work a game any more than a U can tell an R how to work a game. Most nights, the R is the guy who hadn't been the R in the crew's previous games.

Perhaps the newer officials are better positioned to deal with such a change, although I'm working hard to make sure I'm fully on board. I remember back to the first year of the 3-point shot -- older officials were not trained to look at the feet on a jump shot, but this new guy never had a problem with that.

[Smitty]

I'd prefer to hear the other side of the story before giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the R was a jerk. I've had different partners who suggested not calling it automatically. I do anyway. The fact that the OP said the R called him out for ticky tack "and ones" is curious - especially since he claims he didn't call any at all. Something doesn't add up.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I'd prefer to hear the other side of the story before giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the R was a jerk. I've had different partners who suggested not calling it automatically. I do anyway. The fact that the OP said the R called him out for ticky tack "and ones" is curious - especially since he claims he didn't call any at all. Something doesn't add up.

Well, he's not a newbie -- he's been a member here for 10 years.

Ticky-tack "and ones" have nothing to do with the new rule, anyway. I'm not sure why that was brought up. And there are a lot of ticky-tack "and ones" in my opinion, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I'd prefer to hear the other side of the story before giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the R was a jerk. I've had different partners who suggested not calling it automatically. I do anyway. The fact that the OP said the R called him out for ticky tack "and ones" is curious - especially since he claims he didn't call any at all. Something doesn't add up.

So let's say you could hear the other side of the story...what then? This guy is automatically dismissed? That makes lots of sense.

For Texref - the best way I have found to deal with these types of situations/partners is to acknowledge them on the court with a simple "OK. Got it partner" and then walk away. In the locker room you can have a discussion with them, generally fueled by asking questions. "Partner, I am really confused about..." or "Partner, I didn't really understand xyz. Could you explain that to me?"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I'd prefer to hear the other side of the story before giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.

A) Not likely to hear the other side... and B) giving the benefit of the doubt here is appropriate in that he's been here forever and has proven himself to not be a knucklehead already.