Difficult partners (long post... Sorry)

[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?"

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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.

I don't know. That's kind of the point of hearing the other side - to make a more educated judgment.

I just happen to find these types of posts kind of silly. And I work in Texas where I know how these kinds of things go from being in locker rooms during tourney time. I'm pretty sure he doesn't work in my chapter, though, because he would be smart enough to take it to the assignor if he did.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I don't know. That's kind of the point of hearing the other side - to make a more educated judgment.

Roll your eyes all you want... insisting on hearing both sides of the story before making any comment at all would render this forum (heck ... almost ANY forum) useless. Yeah, it'd be great to hear the other side. But it shouldn't be REQUIRED to hear both sides on a forum such as this - else we'll pretty much be stuck having no conversation at all.

Roll Eyes.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I don't know. That's kind of the point of hearing the other side - to make a more educated judgment.

I just happen to find these types of posts kind of silly. And I work in Texas where I know how these kinds of things go from being in locker rooms during tourney time. I'm pretty sure he doesn't work in my chapter, though, because he would be smart enough to take it to the assignor if he did.

You need to make an educated judgement on a guy asking for ways to deal with difficult partners??? Who cares if it went exactly as he said or not - he was asking for advice on how to handle things better.

[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.