Chuck, you are 100% right.

Poor Chuck ! ...A hammy.... Aggravatin'!
Any amount over 100% bothers my gluteus maximus.
mick

<small>I had to start stretching before games about three years ago. </small>

I agree 110%!



I agree 100%!

Sorry to hear that.

Now go make an appointment.

I dont think we have to sell an intentional call immediately.

Many times we have plays that are right at the edge of where intentional starts....

Let me give you an example:

partner at lead and there is a pretty hard foul while ball is going to basket. As he or she is coming out I might say something like If you go with intentional I will back you up or do you want intentional?
I know many times we as officials know it is borderline and we may be afraid to call it or are not sure if partner saw it same way -so if you get that extra couple of seconds to think as we are reporting...

I have had partners ask me "Do you want intentional?", It gets me to think about play. I quickly replay the play...If I think "no"... it's just a report and we go on...

However as I replay it As I go to report it allows the double take to think about play and it may sway my decision to yes, I report the intentional knowing my partner will back me up.

Even if we dont go with the intentional the players probably heard the question and they know they were getting close...

May not work for you but it works for me and most of the guys I work with

Just devil's advocate here - doesn't a true intentional foul make itself obvious right away? If it's that close that you have to think about it or get prodded by your partner (even unwittingly), maybe it's not intentional?

I'd like to think that whoever has primary coverage can recognize an intentional straightaway and make the call right then. The longer you think about it, the more doubt you could have either way.

I'm hardly one to talk, still being new at this, but I would think at some point it becomes instinct - you know an intentional right when you see it. The other factors (the way the game has gone, the score at the time, etc.) should already be in your mind and help you make the decision right then.

Kelvin,
I have asked if a partner's call was intentional, but I have never, otherwise, suggested it.
I hafta believe that, unless you are in a training scenario with a younger/newer official, that tool is seldom used.

Also, I am guessing that you, Kelvin, would very, very rarely change to an intentional on a common foul that you called. :cool:

mick

How would you as a coach feel if a ref called a pushing foul on your player then changed it to an intentional when reporting it to the table (after their partner conversed with them)? It looks much better being consistent with the call from the site to the table.

If it is on the border of being intentional then support your partners decision and tell them afterwards that you would have supported an intentional call. Perhaps they saw something you didn't.

It's always acceptable to overrule your partner when he suggests Bob's Bar and Grill after the game, but it's Happy Hour at Joe's Bar and Grill. Especially when there's a wings special. Hope everyone's having a great summer!

I like that, naturally our goal is to get it right in the first place (funny how that doesn't always happen, though, eh? :D). But I don't see what the problem is with "get it right". It doesn't mean ball-hawk, it doesn't mean step all over your partner, or anything like that. I've always taken it to mean if there is confusion, or an obvious error situation that is solvable (ie. not on fouls), then we have to do our best to make the correct call, and to look as seamless as possible doing it.

I once saw an NCAA tournament game where there was a huge crash on a breakaway, and one official came out HARD with a block. His partner came sprinting in, blowing his whistle, walked right into the middle of the key, and signalled....travel! Partner nods emphatically and put the ball back in play. I thought it was great. TV cuts to closeup shot of each coach, neither is blowing a gasket. Awesome.

backing up partner
 

Ok, so I'm just thinking this situation over here. My partner makes a foul call in his primary (because that's how we do it.) He knows automatically that I will back him up on his call no matter what it may be. I never had to say to a partner, "I'll back you up on your decision."
That is what we do.

Sure, you are right, it doesn't mean that we should ball-hawk. But, that is what it turns out to be. The situations where help is needed with an OOB or the play Canuckrefguy described happen naturally. IMHO those plays can and should be discussed in the pre-game. Trust is also discussed. The bottom line is I don't assign any college, high school or rec basketball. If the assigner thinks my partner(s) should be on the game then they should be able to do the job they are getting paid to do. I cannot and will not constantly look in their area so we can "just get it right." IMHO no matter how we spin it that is what is happening when you use the term "just get it right." Notice, it is never used when talking about focusing on our primary to pick up off-ball. It is always talked about when discussing something our partner(s) didn't see in their primary. To me, getting it right is using the crew concept according to the mechanics, whether 2-person or 3-person, to cover the entire court to the best of our abilities. I have heard this described as a craft and an art form. Call it what you will but the mechanics are our guidlines to cover the floor and the players. Good pre-game, proper whistle discipline (to see the whole play through), proper eye discipline, continuous position adjustments (to avoid getting stacked) IMO allows for us to call plays in our primary (on-ball or off-ball) with a higher percentage of accuracy. I don't mean to piss anyone off with what I've been taught. These are just some things I've picked up from some very successful individuals.

[Edited by tomegun on Aug 11th, 2004 at 06:51 AM]

Tom, that is what it CAN turn out to be. It doesn't always. The point is that good refs don't have an inflated ego to defend. If they goof, and the partner can help them fix it, then the most important thing is to get it right, not to look good. The good ref would rather change his call and look a little foolish for a short time, than to maintain his superficial image at the expense of the game. "Get the call right" definitely doesn't have to mean that no one is watching off-ball. At least, it doesn't when I say it!

Thank you for the insight and truth
 

I like that, naturally our goal is to get it right in the first place (funny how that doesn't always happen, though, eh? :D). But I don't see what the problem is with "get it right". It doesn't mean ball-hawk, it doesn't mean step all over your partner, or anything like that. I've always taken it to mean if there is confusion, or an obvious error situation that is solvable (ie. not on fouls), then we have to do our best to make the correct call, and to look as seamless as possible doing it.

I once saw an NCAA tournament game where there was a huge crash on a breakaway, and one official came out HARD with a block. His partner came sprinting in, blowing his whistle, walked right into the middle of the key, and signalled....travel! Partner nods emphatically and put the ball back in play. I thought it was great. TV cuts to closeup shot of each coach, neither is blowing a gasket. Awesome. [/B][/QUOTE]

From Jeff Rutledge's original post-
I will stay completely out of this discussion and just throw this out there.

Does that mean insert replies four (4) times to the very question at issue?

I am the baseball guy that started this issue. We see a movement afoot that makes officials more accountable. Umpires are overruling calls in MLB, the Big Ten will allow it in football this Fall, instant replay has been fairly effective in the NFL and NHL recently. We're still human, but with intensive TV coverage, our superiors are asking us to get the call right. They would rather have us eat a little crow than bring down a league. I've never said that you should big league a junior partner, but as I've read here and elsewhere, we all have different angles and if handled properly, can get the call right. As a crew, we are obligated to respect the game (read enforce the rules fairly) and do what we can to get make the correct call, that's all. That is what they pay us for, afterall.

I'm sorry that this spilled over onto this Board. If you are interested, you can catch the whole topic on the BB Board. Have your favorite beverage handy, though.

I'm not a basketball guy, and respect the fact that you have no choice but to make tough calls while on the move - a luxury we usually have in baseball. Some of you make it loof easy. Good luck and have a good season.

Re: Thank you for the insight and truth
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WindyCityBlue
From Jeff Rutledge's original post-
I will stay completely out of this discussion and just throw this out there.

Does that mean insert replies four (4) times to the very question at issue?

We see a movement afoot that makes officials more accountable. Umpires are overruling calls in MLB, the Big Ten will allow it in football this Fall, instant replay has been fairly effective in the NFL and NHL recently.
[QUOTE]Just can't let it go with Jeff, can you, Windy? Does it bother you that much that you can't call him names over on McGriffs any more, since Gary put the IP's back in?

Now let's set everything straight here. Not your version of history.

YOU stated that a basketball official could OVERRULE another basketball official.

I stated that the NFHS and NCAA basketball rules very specifically do NOT allow any official to OVERRULE another official. I cited those rules. NFHS rule 2-6 is an example. Officials can give information to other officials, but only the official that made the call can change it. If you want to continue arguing that that is wrong, please cite something from the rules that will back you up.

I await your rules citations.

Btw, see if you can find anything that says JUDGEMENT calls can be changed in Big 10 football this fall too, under the new experimental review process.

Actually the other night I had a marginal one. (we were using NBA rules but situation would be same)I had foul and thought about Intentional (Flagrant penalty One) I was lead
ball was far side of paint and Center blew whistle as well. In that case we normally let C have it... He came across we talked... We went with common foul.

Wrong choice should have been the intentional type.. You can confirm with Drake.

I dont think that all intentionals are clear cut.