Since this is not going to be asked by the person that keep making this an issue.

When is it acceptable to overrule your partner?

Give examples if you can when it is appropriate if you can.

I will stay completely out of this discussion and just throw this out there.

Peace

when would i?

when i am more than 110% positive of my call AND
when my position supports a better angle AND
when i know that my call will not cause chaos AND
at least one team is expecting the right thing to be done.

and in this situation i would STILL not "overrule". I would bring the information to my partner. It's his call.

just my thoughts...

Only on situations where the ball goes out of bounds and I'm 300% sure that my partner got the call wrong only if it was last touched in my primary. The arrow is another one of these correctable situations. If my mental arrow differs fromt the one on the scorer's table I'll bring it up to my partner and ask if he has definite knowledge that the arrow on the table is right. If he/she doesn't we go with mine.

It is unacceptable for partners to be overruling eachother on fouls and violations except for those listed above. We have to support eachother and act as a team. By overruling every call this is not accomplished and it makes both officials look bad.

Let your partner make a mistake, then discuss the situation at a suitable time, i.e. half time or in your post game. That way, you both will look good on the court and the situation will be addressed at a later time off the court.

JMHO but...
Never acceptable, under any circumstance.
Only if I am asked, by my partner, will I offer any additional information that may assist him/her.
Then, my partner may do what he/she wishes with my offered information.

I forgot to add in my previous post that if a situation exists where I feel my partner's call should be changed, for the reasons listed above of course, the procedure to adminsiter this change is blowing the whistle, meeting with your partner, then having the one who made the origional call make the corrected call.

Does "being asked" include partner saying in pre-game "The most important thing is to get the call right?" Do you ever volunteer info without being asked at that moment, if you think the partner is open to that?

All I know is I would never say this in the locker room after a game:

"Yep, you blew that call but you didn't ask me."

Has anyone ever corrected a foul or violation, excluding OOB, called by their partner, and if so, what were the circumstances of this??

Varsity game two years ago (2-person). About 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter of a great, close game with playoff implications. Partner is lead, I'm trail. Team A is inbounding in frontcourt under their basket. A1 throws inbounds towards top of key where it glances off A2's hands and goes into backcourt. A3 gets control of it. I hear a whistle. My partner has called a backcourt violation! I blow my whistle and run up to him and explain to him that it can't be a backcourt violation without control. He agrees. He changes his call. I did not overrule him, but I sure as heck would have tried to overrule him in that situation if he had resisted. Get it right. Just another one of those times that makes me prefer a ref with good rules knowledge over one with amazing court presence (I prefer both, but given the choice......)

Z

Z,

Why would your partner calling a BC Violation as the Lead?

His Rules Knowledge was not the issue. I think he need to look in his mechanics book.

Peace

Agreed Rut... he needed to chop in time, but he should have been watching for the touch out of the corner of his eye and then release to me since it's in my primary. It was embarrasing... and he wasn't about to go explain the change in his call to the coaches so I had to do it (no problems). It was FUBAR all the way around.

Z

You never over-rule, you assist in them changing their call.

You should only give info and let them make the call right.

I never volunteer info without "being asked".
And "being asked" isn't always a verbal thing either.

Corrected = no
When called upon for info = given details from my vantage point.

Why would an official who doesn't understand this very simple, basic, no-brainer of a rule regarding a backcourt violation, be placed in such a big varsity game with playoff implications?
Just wondering.

C'mon...he earned it by marrying the assignor's sister.

No, he was assigned by the UPAC.

Easy now, mick!

What I have seen in my local area is that good veteran officals often tend to get lazy in regards to high school games. They quit going to camps, they stop reading the rule books (especially our college officials who think that they can get by on their "presence" rather than continuing to study the rules and mechanics of NFHS), they get a little lazy in their pregame conferences and they forget coverage areas for 2-person games.

Z

I don't really agree with the statement about college officials. Sometimes it happens but I think once an official does or doesn't do something that will harm the game we as officials should step up.

I cringe every time I hear about just getting the call right. When we take the assignment isn't that our goal? When we put getting the call right above all else chaos can take a game over. It is like a license to look all over the court. Sure there are areas that are dual and times when we need assistance with our line but saying "let's just get it right" means (to me) you're looking there and I'm looking there too just in case you miss something. Since I know some will not like these comments let me throw this out there. How many times do these situations involve an off-ball play? Is it coincidence that this happens on ball? I don't think so. I think "getting it right" results in more than one set of eyes being on the ball too much. I'm not talking about OOB plays. One thing I pre-game is we have to be careful on OOB plays. Right or wrong, the reality of OOB plays is if the play is right in front of me I might have a reason for who I give the ball to. If the ball comes from out of my primary or there is space between the players in my primary with no "incidental" contact then that is a different story. It is a matter of getting the call incorrect or making the call to avoid a foul. Now, I have been told by evaluators at camps this summer that thinking is out the window. If it is a foul call it a foul. The reason for this is tape doesn't lie. It was said over and over "we have to beat the tape."

To over-rule or not to over-rule? No, I don't think it is right. There is always an exception to the rule but generally speaking, no.

Just to clarify
 

So....if it's not in your primary, you shouldn't have seen it anyway, right?

And if it is in your primary, your partner shouldn't overrule you. But if you realize right away that you blew it, you could stop the proceedings and get a little help, just in case?

So if your partner asks, and you happened to see it, you should give him/her your input? Other than that, save it for a time out or debrief?

I haven't been at this long enough where I would take offense to being overruled by a more experienced official. Maybe someday I would. But even though I might look like a jerk, I'd rather get the call right and learn from the experience.

Not sure that is just a college official's issue.
 

Z,

It sounds like you guys have a bigger problem in your area.

I almost hate the fact I used the word "presence" about two years ago, because I think folks have taken that to mean that you are not concerned with the rules of the game. One does not exclude the other. You have to know the rules, but you also have to know how to communicate with coaches and players and handle yourself on the court. Just because I have people skills and can speak well to coaches, does not exclude me from reading the rulebook or understanding what mechanics I should use.

I am sure that things are different in your area, but in my area the college officials are usually the best to work with. They are the ones that constantly go to camps and constantly are trying to get better. And in our state it is required to maintain our license to attend camps every 3 years. Of course there are some that wait the 3 years, but many go to at least one every year. Of course you get guys that lose sight of their mission on the court and stop paying attention to a lot of things, let alone the rulebook. In my opinion that is not because they aspire to have more presence. That is more because they forget what might have got them to where they are. But the officials that constantly get playoff opportunities are usually people that have the entire package to some extent. There is always an official or two that some might think to themselves, “how did they get there?" But they usually do not get there by messing up major rules in big regular season games or playoff games.

Peace

Re: Not sure that is just a college official's issue.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge

Quote:

You have to know the rules, but you also have to know how to communicate with coaches and players and handle yourself on the court. Just because I have people skills and can speak well to coaches, does not exclude me from reading the rulebook or understanding what mechanics I should use.

Amen to that Rut!

Quote:

I am sure that things are different in your area, but in my area the college officials are usually the best to work with. They are the ones that constantly go to camps and constantly are trying to get better. Peace

I love working with those guys Rut... and I hope that others that I work with think I am in that group. There are some of those "always trying to get better" officials around here too, but I have had more than my share of experiences with "bigtimers" who have forgot what got them there.

Z

Been there, done that.
 

Z,

We all have bigtimers. So I understand where you are coming from.

Peace

I agree with what several others have said in this post - it is never acceptable to "over-rule" a partner, but it is essential that if you saw something different that you discuss it.

Part of my pre-game is discussing simultaneous whistles, and how to quickly and efficiently sort them out. If I call something one way, and my partner has seen it another, I want to know.

Although they happen mainly on out of bounds, I have also had a couple of block/charge situations where one of us has called it one way, but after talking it over, we have decided it should have gone the other.

As a general rule - if it is in my area, then I have the final say, but I will happily talk to you about it.

Interesting discussion...

Our ultimate goal is to get it right. In that regard, I have been "overruled" a few times in my career - I call white ball, partner tweets, jogs over, gives me info, I tweet and reverse the call - no hesitation, no question, because I know my partner must be very sure.

I have also "overruled" a few times. Of course, like the "admitting mistakes to coaches" thing, do it too often and it's a problem.

Trouble is, the line between help and hinder is fuzzy, and moves around a lot. Pregaming those situations cuts them down to only the ones where overruling is the right thing to do.

If we approach all of these situations with the attitude that "the crew MUST look good", those overrule situations become less like catastrophic events and more like routine ones.

Can someone tell me what is meant by "our ultimate goal is to get it right" or any other statement like that? I know what it means but I want to know what is meant by those on this board in basketball terms. I don't want to think the wrong thing so I want to make sure I'm on point with my thinking.

I totally agree about bigtimers. They make it tough on the crew. Fortunately for me, I think I've been in the stands watching bigtimers more than I've been on the court with one. For every person who is like this there are probably 10 who aren't. Those 10 should get credit too.

tomegun,

I cannot speak for everyone, but I know that you can only get certain calls right (helping your partner). You cannot change foul calls and you cannot change most violations. You might be able to help out on a couple of out of bounds calls, but that really is it. You can give information that will help them apply all the rules correctly, like telling them the basket went in the basket (or did not go in). You might even help with giving the proper number when there is a question of who fouled. But if I call a foul that is wrong, you cannot change that. If I pass on a foul or some contact, your partner should not assume there was a foul, when you pass on a play. And if a partner is constantly making calls in their partner's area, then what are they missing? I have no problem with officials acting like human beings and realizing we are going to miss things. I think "getting it right" can only go so far. There are coverage areas and times when to give help and times when not to give help. I know most of the time I will not help if I am unclear as to what just took place. If my partner is asking for help that is the best time to help in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I believe there are people that feel they have to extend themselves more than what I have stated. We have to after all trust our partners. If they make mistakes we should support them. Be we should also not do their job either.

Peace

I would never overrule my partner.

I have brought in information to my partners when it was OBVIOUS it should be different (but only on violations). I have also been asked for help on a tip they were not sure who it went off of. I have also had a partner come up to me say he knows he kicked the call and that he's going to give it to the other team (I didn't have to say anything).

I never discuss/help on the floor a partners foul call (be it charge/block etc.) as it shows the coaches that I'm running the show and I don't feel my P. is strong (we are supposed to be a team). Those are left for discussion at the next opportunity (T.O., Quarter/Half time) then I only ask what they saw on that play. You may want to discuss in your pregame a hand signal for each other to tell them to remember that play - this makes it easier to discuss later on.

This is such a good option for both partners. I love that this tool is available.

NFHS rule 2-6- "No official has the authority to <font color = red>set aside</font> or question decisions made by the other official(s) within the limits of their respective outlined duties".

The NCAA rule basically says the same thing.

Just thought that I'd throw this in.

If my partner is kicking a rule interp I will jump in.

If it was a quick OOB play with a lob from trail area to lead (etc) and my partner may have it the wrong way, I will step in and offer.

If it is a travel or three seconds those kinds of things my partner is on thier own.

If it is a hard foul, I will step in and tell them I will back up an intentional call or ask if they want intentional.

What about when we are getting evaluated? :)

This is more what I was meaning in my post.

In my experiences I don't know if I would run in and ask if they want to call it an intentional foul.

I feel in order to sell an intentional foul call it has to be done immediately. If the call changes from a push to an intentional foul you will really start to hear it from the coaches. I may discuss with them afterward the intentional foul and ask if they may have thought about calling it intentional.

Always stirring the pot...

I had this happen, not in my primary (it was very close to being in mine, happened quickly at the end of a game when things were moving quickly and we were all hustling around). I saw what could have been intentional, and which I probably would have called intentional because it just seemed a bit much. My partner, who had it, didn't call it intentional. Next time out, I said "I would have been with you on that one if you'd called it intentional." and that was it.

Say what? :confused: I'm not stirring the pot at all, Juulie.

Okay sorry, I'll change filters now.

Do many officials feel that it is ok, on a perceived missed OOB call by their partner, to tweet and run in and try to offer info if partner hasn't asked for help?

I have a little trouble with this.

oatmealqueen,
If the crowd is all over my partner and I saw the last touch, I'm running in. I would hope my partner would bail me out accordingly.

Of course, if partner gives me that wide-eyed, "now-what-have-I-done" look, it becomes even easier.

mick

<small>Still no ratings U.P. here.</small>

mick,
If the crowd's all over me, I'll ask.
I've also been know to give that "now-what" look to my part.
Ratings here just this past weekend for me.
barb

oatmealqueen,
...Then there are the times when I don't have a clue and I go directly to my partner (like that ?checked? swing).
<LI> If partner sees it, I get a direction.
<LI> If partner does not see it, I get two thumbs U.P.

Either way, what partner says ... goes.
mick

JRut and Cingram, I agree with you guys on this one. "We have to get it right" rubs me the wrong way because I view this as a license/reason to ball watch. The way the two of you describe it is right in line with what I think. Like I said before, our goal is to get it right when we start the game so there shouldn't be a need to say it.


^huh? That is exactly what I would say if someone came to me with this. I just tried to think of something else to say and I can't because I don't understand why someone would do this. I start out like "well if...." or "when that happens....." but I can't finish it. My thinking would be "you have a whistle and .........." I just ran this by my wife, who has attended and filmed many games, and her first reaction was "why" accompanied by a sour face. I don't get it.

I can't speak for "many officials", but if I am 100% sure that my partner signaled the wrong direction on an OOB call, I will tweet and tell him/her that I'm positive there was a (fill in color here) touch last.

It doesn't happen often in a 2-whistle game, b/c I am rarely 100% sure of my partner's area. It doesn't happen often in a 3-whistle game, b/c I have very good partners most of the time in my college games.

Just as an aside, can we please get rid of the "110%" nonsense when we have this kind of discussion? When you say 110%, all you're saying is that you're 100% sure. So just say 100%. We'll all understand.

And yes, the hammy's still bothering me. :mad:

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.

Re: Thank you for the insight and truth
 

I can see RIF is a problem for you. My responses had nothing to do with the actual question, but side issues that relate to this issue. I have not told people what to say or where to take the issues. They answered them on their own and used the words they felt made sense. I am wondering are you going to ever admit what people have said here and say you were wrong.

BTW, you mentioned that the instant replay system will make Big Ten Officials more accountable. Well, they are already held accountable. Big Ten Officials are already graded on every single call and non-call in all games they officiate. They are even graded on their mechanics and positioning on EVERY SINGLE PLAY. All the instant replay system is going to do, is help those calls that are might be reviewed by the NFL. That is it. No passing interference calls. Not fumble/down by contact calls when the whistle was blown. And this is only an experiment. It could easily go away after this year. Not sure this raises the level of accountability for the Big Ten.

Peace

I agree that good refs shouldn't have an inflated ego. I have a question for you. If, on a normal play, I have match-ups in my area and something happens in your area like a call, non-call, foot on the line or the like and you don't see it why would I see it? We could talk primary, secondary and the like but what about the fact that if you clearly see a play that is in someone else's primary and you have a match-up in your primary things can happen that you didn't see?
I know what happens in a regular game and it isn't the thought of someone else giving me some information. I ask for help on line a lot because I don't want to miss something in the middle of my primary. We are here to get it right, why say it? I've heard many examples of this when someone's foot is on the line across the court or something similar. I have never heard this said on this board concerning a play away from the ball. I don't think that is coincidence. I'm sure you don't mean it to be a license to watch the ball but what does saying it help? I can tell you with confidence that when an official reads that this board they go out and watch the ball just in case they have to "get it right."

Philosophy of Officiating
 

Therein lies the problem...you don't see that the VERY REASON they are implementing this system is to HAVE THE RIGHT CALL MADE ON GAME DECIDING ISSUES. I did not invent the system or limit its use. If it corrects even one game deciding call, then it worked.

It will not go away next year, because the SEC and PAC10 have already made inquiries about having a system in place and have been told to wait until the bugs have been worked out - most likely the following season. I suggest that you read the entire article (published in the Chicago SunTimes, as I pointed out several times on the BB site).

You seem to have issues with accountability and having your calls corrected. I have never suggested that your partner should blow the whistle and say, "No, idiot boy, there was a travel before the blocking call. Wake up and watch me make the right call." I work with higher level officials and have the tact to approach them (even in a heated play) to say that I saw something different. At that level of ball they don't let their egos get in the way. We'll go get a beer after the game and chew on the play for a while and know that we got it right. AND...we recognize that we have each other's backs and don't hang each other on a controversial overturn. Maybe you've experienced the opposite and that is a shame. The game is not about me and my crew. Just like Tom Ridge said, we have to get it right every time - all of our blunders live on in perpetuity. If you can't humble yourself to accept that the call may have been incorrect, then the problem is yours, and should not be the athlete's.

Re: Philosophy of Officiating
 

So are you telling me that Pass Interference calls could not be game changing? I would highly doubt that PI calls are going to be reviewed and changed in this system. They cannot be changed in the NFL. Ask the Colts and Payton Manning? Not much the instant replay could do about possible defensive holding calls.


Of course they have. That is why this is just an experiment. They all belong to the NCAA and the NCAA might say there is no way to use the system properly for all games and not allow the system at the NCAA level. Also remember that Michigan-Ohio State will have more cameras than Illinois-Northwestern. So it is very possible that there will be a play that will not have a really good angle. So the system will already have flaws involved. There is already some complaint that a play that will get changed in the Big Ten might help a team win a NC or win a game that the system would not be able to change in other parts of the country.

What does this have to do with me? If I move to the levels that I want to achieve, every single call will be reviewed. Not just the ones I call the ones I do not call. All contact plays, all mechanics movements or signals. I attend basketball camps all the time and have every call and every movement challenged. Why in the world I have a problem with calls being reviewed? They are if you work a varsity basketball game, because all games are pretty much taped. This is not about calls being reviewed. This is about who can change them or tell the calling official was wrong and at what point. This already happens with Basketball officials and football officials. I have had plays in football games being questioned about a call or two. Not to the level of the Big Ten of course, but it happens all the time. That does not happen with baseball that I have seen. You are lucky if the school even cares to tape their games at the HS level.


What does any of that have to do with the discussion? I am waiting for your rules reference and justification by the rulebook or the procedures you suggest should be used.

I think Tom Ridge is dealing with an issue that affects life and death. The last time I checked, my out call at first has nothing to do with someone dying if I make a mistake. I also do not feel that one call is going to lose someone the game either. You always like to say your issues are based in logic and you really went way off base to make that point.

Again Windy, you have not addressed the vast majority of people that used the word "never" in their posts about this issue as it relates to "overruling" their partners or being "overruled." Most of the people here and on the other boards do not agree with your point of view. They seem to feel that they also have to have trust amongst their partner's and they have to let their partner's work the game. That is the facts of this discussion and you want to keep making this about me. This issue has nothing to do with my personal feelings, but I just wanted to illustrate that people literally all over the world disagree with your point of view on this. I do not care what levels you work, but for most of us, we are not changing calls for our partner's.

Peace

Re: Philosophy of Officiating
 

You seem to have issues with accountability and having your calls corrected. I have never suggested that your partner should blow the whistle and say, "No, idiot boy, there was a travel before the blocking call. Wake up and watch me make the right call."
[/B][/QUOTE]Oh, you wouldn't suggest that, eh? Was it another Windy City Blue that stated the following?-

"You claim that basketball officials never <font color = red>overrule</font> a bad call. You said that includes FED and NCAA. I pointed out one very specific occassion where it occurred in the NCAA tournament last year.... Now you say that it wasn't <font color = red>overruled</font>. The other official came in and gave another perspective indicating the call was incorrect. Then the calling official changed the call, but it was NOT <font color = red>overruled</font>. When one official makes a bad call and another confers with him(maybe it takes seconds, maybe longer) to contradict the call, and it is changed, it has been <font color = red>overruled</font>. A ruling was made, and it was turned over...thus <font color = red>OVERRULED</font>.

Here's the link for your words above, Windy:
http://www.officialsforum.com/showth...3&pagenumber=5

Here's the applicable NCAA rules- once again, Windy:

NCAA rule 2-2-3-- <i>"No official shall have the authority to set aside or question decisions made by other official(s) within the limits of their respective duties"</i>.

NCAA rule 2-2-4-- <i>"One official may assist another official by providing additional information related to a made decision"</i>.

Now, tell me again, Windy, how can one official -by rule- OVERRULE another official's call, if that official doesn't want to change that call?

Jurassic,
Is that a basketball rule book? Hmmmm, I thought that the information being discussed pertained to the NEW Big Ten football policy. I hope you read next year's book better than you read the last few posts.

Do you just see my name and need your heart medication?
That's too bad.

Rut is wrong...again
 

recognizing that this is a basketball site, I apologize for Jeff's inability to let this die.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
So are you telling me that Pass Interference calls could not be game changing? I would highly doubt that PI calls are going to be reviewed and changed in this system. They cannot be changed in the NFL. Ask the Colts and Payton Manning? Not much the instant replay could do about possible defensive holding calls.

Did I develop the system? The Big Ten rules committee decided which plays can and will be reviewed. They were clearly spelled out in my orginal BB thread and in the article. You really should learn to read better.
Also, I didn't know that the Big Ten controlled the NFL. Thanks for clarifying the issue and maintaining focus. I'm certain that the rest of this Board is almost done laughing at you.

Of course they have. That is why this is just an experiment. They all belong to the NCAA and the NCAA might say there is no way to use the system properly for all games and not allow the system at the NCAA level. Also remember that Michigan-Ohio State will have more cameras than Illinois-Northwestern. So it is very possible that there will be a play that will not have a really good angle. So the system will already have flaws involved. There is already some complaint that a play that will get changed in the Big Ten might help a team win a NC or win a game that the system would not be able to change in other parts of the country.

One point at a time...the PAC10 and SEC asked for permission at the same time (ref. the Sports Illustrated article) the Big Ten was granted permission because they could accomplish it faster. Michigan-Ohio State will have the same amount of replay cameras in use as Indiana - Minnesota. Sorry to disappoint you but that too, was in the article. Complaining that a call was correctly made??? Yes, that is serious. ;}


Why in the world I have a problem with calls being reviewed?

I...Just...Don't...Know.
You have never shown a valid reason why your incorrect call should not be overruled. Several other members have given examples of why this should happen. Maybe you shoudl read their posts again, since mine seem too complex.

I am waiting for your rules reference and justification by the rulebook or the procedures you suggest should be used.

Again...read...the...SunTimes or SportsIllustrated articles. They will show you why and how these calls are justified in the 2004 Big Ten Football season.


Again Windy, you have not addressed the vast majority of people that used the word "never" in their posts about this issue as it relates to "overruling" their partners or being "overruled."

Oh, my...are you lying again??? I saw sevarl members point out that you are mistaken - both here and on the other Board.

Most of the people here and on the other boards do not agree with your point of view. They seem to feel that they also have to have trust amongst their partner's and they have to let their partner's work the game.

Yes, that is why the instant replay system will be implimented this season. Because guys like you are afraid to have their calls changed and your partners will cover up for your weaknesses.

I do not care what levels you work, but for most of us, we are not changing calls for our partner's.

I know...I know...that is why it is so sad. You see your partner kick a call, letting him hang rather than get it right and allowing the game to be played fairly. Let's penalize the contestants because of an official's pride or his partner's lack of a spine.

There goes your selective memory again, Windy. The whole argument to date has simply been about YOUR statement that a basketball official could OVERRULE another basketball official. I told you that was WRONG, and give your the appropriate rules citations to prove that you were WRONG! I cited them again above- for the umpteenth time. What part of these rules citations don't you understand? This issue has never had anything to do with football, baseball or any other sport, so quit trying to interject them. They aren't germane to this dispute in any way, shape or form. Stick with your original statement regarding basketball. The NCAA and FED basketball rule books say that YOUR statement is WRONG, Windy. Dispute that!

Now, cut all of your crap out, Windy. Are you still saying that the NCAA and NFHS basketball rulesets DO allow one official to OVERRULE another official's call? Yes or no? And if you say "yes", Windy, it certainly would be nice if you could cite something- anything- that would back up that assertation.

WCB and RUT.....take it elsewhere
 

Guys ,
Please take your conversation back to where it came from . You guys both seem to be fairly intelligent men so please understand that nobody wants this personal conversation spilling over to this forum .

Re: Rut is wrong...again
 

Lah me.

Windy, you never did answer my question in another post about the Big 10's experimental use of replay in football this year. Is it true, or not true, that this replay system will NOT be used for JUDGEMENT calls, such as penalties,etc.? I repeat- "WILL NOT BE USED FOR JUDGEMENT CALLS". Yes or no, Windy.

Lah me!

Re: Rut is wrong...again
 

Have you ever had a conversation with a Big Ten Official about this? Considering that the Sun-Times and Sports Illustrated are just media publications and do not always state the procedures and what the practices are in place. They just talked about this issue last night at the COA meeting, where two members are going to act as "Instant Replay" officials (Tom Quinn and Jim Keogh). They will give a presentation later in the year and tell the membership how it works. So we will see. But these are people that will not sit on the field and make decisions. Not the same thing as what we discussed on the other boards.


<b>I...Just...Don't...Know.
You have never shown a valid reason why your incorrect call should not be overruled.</b>

I have a good reason; maybe I felt my call was right? Maybe I saw the entire play and was in position to make the call and got the call right?

<b>Several other members have given examples of why this should happen. Maybe you shoudl read their posts again, since mine seem too complex.</b>

Name them? Do not just say, “several other posters" and not reference their words. Then when they disagree with your assessment, then tell us I was wrong then?

<b>Again...read...the...SunTimes or SportsIllustrated articles. They will show you why and how these calls are justified in the 2004 Big Ten Football season.</b>

I did not realize that the Chicago SunTimes and SI was the rulebook. Interesting point of view. I will make sure I look at SI the next time they tell us that the NC game was decided by a call and how to handle it. I am sure they were right on during the Ohio State-Miami Fiesta Bowl game.


<b>Oh, my...are you lying again??? I saw sevarl members point out that you are mistaken - both here and on the other Board.</b>

Name them.

<b>Most of the people here and on the other boards do not agree with your point of view. They seem to feel that they also have to have trust amongst their partner's and they have to let their partner's work the game.</b>

How so? Most people have used the words "never" and "it is not my call to change" when talking about this issue. Even a couple of stories about how they did "overruled" someone and learned a lesson. Again, stop talking about in generalities, name them. I have not seen many people say you can "overrule" your partner's ever.

<b>Yes, that is why the instant replay system will be implimented this season. Because guys like you are afraid to have their calls changed and your partners will cover up for your weaknesses.</b>

One of the reasons this change was made was several plays that happen to Penn State and Joe Pa's team. One of the calls was in a game PSU was playing Ohio State and they were Passing Interference no calls. After that game Joe Pa was crying for Instant Replay. Nothing would have been change in those games under the system the Big Ten is implementing.

<b>I know...I know...that is why it is so sad. You see your partner kick a call, letting him hang rather than get it right and allowing the game to be played fairly. Let's penalize the contestants because of an official's pride or his partner's lack of a spine.</b>

Since you keep referring to football, I will give you a great example. I am the Referee or White hat on my crew. In a 5 man system, I have the QB and the kickers in most situations. When a ball is passed, I am not watching the flight of the ball. I am not watching the receivers to see if they are held. I am not seeing the ball being tipped at the LOS. I cannot rule on catch and no catch situation. If I watch those plays, I will miss my responsibilities with late hits or illegal hits on the QB or kicker. I cannot bail out my partner on any of those plays. No matter how much I would like to. Not if I am doing my job.

In baseball, if I am working the field, I cannot tell my partner that last pitch was over and change it. Even if it was obvious to me from my view point. My partner has a job to do, and if he or she cannot do it, they will not be there. If there is a play at the plate, I cannot tell my partner that he kicked a call on safe or out, if the ball was caught and a tag is at issue. Or I cannot help if the issue is whether the plate was touched or not. Of course I can help on whether the ball was dropped, but that is all I can do is help. I cannot tell him what to do after that.

In basketball most of the situations people talked about were out of bounds call. And it was made very clear that if they saw something that was obvious, they would inform their partner of what they saw. But I cannot think of one post that suggested that you come in and change the call without your partner's consent or outside of the "primary" coverage of that partner. A few years ago I was working a 3 Man basketball game and my partner called a foul while a player was about to shoot the ball and the ball went in. I went to my partner and quietly told him (did not signal) "the ball went in." He did not take my information and did not count the basket. When we got into the locker room, my other partner said to him, “you should have counted the basket." He went on to further say, “if your partner comes to you like that, take the advice on plays like that." All I could do is give that information. The official that made the call was sure he was right and made a decision. It is not my job to "make him" change the call that he made. I just provided information and it is up to him to do that. If there was an evaluator there, that would have been all they would have expected me to do and the rest would have been on my partner's shoulders.

Now, I have very clearly stated to you what can and cannot be done. You claim you only work baseball, but you want to debate what other sports do. I will be speaking at the IACAO Football Clinic this weekend (Saturday) and there will be just about every Chicago area assignor present. You can ask them all if you like. I will be giving a presentation myself at 1:00 and will discuss issues as it relates to working with your partners. If that is not good enough, the COA meets and Hinsdale South High School, every Tuesday at 7:00 until mid-October. Jim and Tom are present at about every meeting. Jim Keogh assigns about 30+ schools at the College level (D3 and JUCO) and helps scout for the NFL in their new program to recruit of find potential prospects to work in the NFL. Tom Quinn was in the Big Ten for years and worked with and helped mentor many current Big Ten Officials and is worshipped in our area. Both men know much more than officiating in football than I will ever know in my lifetime. Both worked in the Big Ten and have been evaluators for years. I just saw both of them yesterday and Steve Pamon (the only Black Crew Chief in the Big Ten) gave a presentation on the new NCAA Rules and talked briefly about this very issue on instant replay. So my knowledge about this issue is not from a paper, it is from the very people that will be involved in the process. You are welcome to come and ask them yourself.


Peace

Re: WCB and RUT.....take it elsewhere
 

This is not a personal discussion. This discussion is about philosophy and rules that we all have to deal with. This is a very appropriate discussion, especially since all the NF and NCAA Rulebooks use very similar language. This is an interesting conversation, because I wanted to clearly know if any sport or any level believed that their partner could come in and change your call without you consent. No different than any question I would ask if I had had this conversation off this site.

Peace

Re: Re: Philosophy of Officiating
 

This is more directed at Windy then you Jurrasic :)

I believe the sitch Windy is talking about is the Lead ref coming out with the Block call and the Trail ref coming in with a Travel. This is not an overrule. The Trail Official is not coming in and <font color=red>CHANGING</font> his partners call. An overrule on his partners call would be more along the lines of changing his block call to a charge call (or even better nullifying the call and making it a no-call). He is GIVING information about something that happened <font color=red>BEFORE</font> the block happened (the travel in this case). Once the travel is called the play is dead and the contact afterwards is not called unless it is severe enough to warrant a more severe foul (of a technical nature as it happened during a dead ball).

In this play, did you see both refs when the whistle was blown. Did both have a signal (one with an open hand the other with the fist)? If that is the case they have a double whistle and are supposed to discuss what happened first and make the correct call. Sometimes some refs (myself included (gotta work on this)) don't hear their p's whistle and make the signal of what they called (the Lead ref in the NCAA game) - The trail official realizing this and knowing that his travel happened before the Block came in and gave information very visibly and verbally (with his whistle). In this case the travel happened before the block so that was the correct call to be made.

Agreed
 

This has been an interesting thread....until WCB chimed in and now the thread has digressed into name calling and what he said on some other board . I really have learned alot from this board and I would like to continue to use it as a tool to further my officiating knowledge . Sifting thru page after page of one upmanship to one another just dampens my enthusiasm for this site . Lively discussion is one thing but IMO you guys are a little too much ...
RUT/WCB/JR - you guys are better then this . You all seem to have an excellent grasp on your sports !! Just leave it at that or email each other privately.
I promise to not make any other comments on this

Mommy, make the mean man stop!
 

Sorry WeekendRef, but Rut brought this to this Board, not I.
He has twisted the facts and clouded the issues.

Jurassic -

I’ll try to keep this simple. Apparently you have a problem with the word “overrule”. Feel free to substitute “change”, “alter” or “make-correct” if it helps.

Don’t pull any of that selective memory crap, you’re just as guilty. Several members pointed out that you are playing word games with just one post. I clarified the issue and gave examples of what is acceptable. It seems that none of your basketball compadres are coming to your rescue here either. Amazing, no???

I believe that Canuckrefguy gave a fine example of another NCAA game where those referees found it within themselves to change/alter/overrule a call that was made. His post was made at 7:58 last night, but he’s probably not aware that what he saw couldn’t have happened because you say so. So, in answer to your question, yes calls are changed/altered/overruled by other officials at the NCAA and FED level. Should they be, YES!

Rut or should I say, Rit (Referee in Training) - It is hard t believe that you claim to officiate several sports at the Varsity level. You have the attention span of a pre-teen on a sugar buzz. Try to focus, man. I don’t care how many people you “talk” to at your “meetings”...imagination is a wonderful thing. Sports Illustrated and the SunTimes are wrong because you don’t agree with the message of their stories. Too bad, when the NCAA votes to institute Division 1 instant replay, I will be right back here showing the world what kind of fantasy you live.

Officiating is evolving whether you like it or not. Basketball is the next one on the radar screen - they already argue about the game clock, shots at the buzzer and whether a three point shot was legit. How long before they allow this scrutiny in the NBA or NCAA Tourney? Will it make us better officials? Will closeups on 60” Plasma screens showing the toes on the line make a difference? Will the next generation of officials be scared away because of these changes? The simple fact of all instant replay users is that they want to get the call right. This replay system is here because officials are afraid to overrule their partners, even when they are 100% sure of the call.

RIT?
 

When you will act like a professional. Thank you for proving to everyone what you are really about.

Peace

Windy, I don't have a problem with the word "overrule" at all. I also don't have a problem with the words "change", "alter" or "make correct" either. The FACT still remains that the NCAA and NFHS rules that I cited very specifically say that one official CANNOT OVERRULE, CHANGE, ALTER, or MAKE CORRECT another official's decision. You have given your opinion- nothing else. Your opinion is in direct conflict with the RULES that I cited. The only person that can change a call in basketball is the official that made that call in the first place. That's what the rules state. And NO- calls at the NCAA and FED levels are NEVER OVERRULED by another official. The rules DO NOT permit that.

As to your other reference to Canuckrefguy's post, were you aware that the play that he was talking about is covered by a completely different rule, and is not germane at all to this discussion? If you knew anything at all about the basketball rules, you might have known that. If two officials make conflicting calls on a single play- as in one calling it a violation and the other calling it a foul- then the officials MUST decide which occurred first, and then they HAVE to go with that call. Different rule completely, Windy. The officials still CANNOT OVERRULE one another on this play. They HAVE to come to an agreement on which occurred first. And btw, if the officials hadda each called a foul on different players, such as on a block/charge- and they can't agree what call they should go with, again neither of the officials CAN OVERRULE the other. A completely different rule is used again now, Windy. If they can't agree on which foul to go with, then both players get a foul charged to them, and you have a jump ball and an arrow possession. You were aware of all of these different rules that apply for all of these different situations though, weren't you, Windy? Do you know what they all have in common, btw? In NONE of these situations can one official OVERRULE another official's call!

Lah me. Guy's never looked at a basketball rule book in his life, but he's trying to tell me that he's right and the rules are wrong. Un-freaking-believable!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 11th, 2004 at 06:26 PM]

Guys - this is getting out of hand. Obviously the two of you are never going to agree - so why not just drop it and let it go!

Ah Windy...
 

I will not deal with your name calling. That speaks for itself.

I have watched this discussion closely. Windy you are so wrong.

They already use replay in the NCAA and NBA Basketball.

You are only a baseball umpire. Not one level that I am aware of uses any replay in baseball. Not the Majors. Not the NCAA World Series. Not LL or any games that you see on TV. Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

You find one guy that lives in Canada to back up your position. I am not even sure that they use NCAA Rules up there. International Basketball is mostly governed by FIBA. FIBA does not even use three officials to work games yet. Nothing against canuckref and his knowledge of this issue but I assume that he does not work under NF which works very closely with the NCAA on deciding rules and mechanics. For God Sake both the NF and NCAA are based in Indianapolis, Indiana.

It is clear that you have not read all the other posts here. Many people keep saying it is unacceptable is not the way to go. I am a baseball umpire as well and worked that the longest out of all my sports. You cannot take one point of view and claim you have the right answer.

Well, you're probably right in that we are never gonna agree. However, the last thing in the world that I want to see is maybe a new basketball official to take a look at one of Windy's posts and possibly think that there might be a rules basis for what he is saying. There- plain and simple- isn't! He's wrong!

On the plus side, I haven't called him any names yet, have I? :D

OZ, I have to agree with JR on this one here.
 

OZ,

JR is completely right. Someone is going read this board (basketball officials) and think that a baseball only is telling them the proper procedure. Of course we are not going to agree, but that is why you debate the issue. Because if in the game of football or basketball you do what a NCAA Baseball Umpire claims to do, then you will never get anywhere. I know guys that "step on the toes" of their partners and they do not advance because no one wants to work with them. In all the sports I work the higher ups always talk about how the officials are a team. We are to support out partners even when they make mistakes. Unless you have a serious rules violation, you stay away from judgment calls.

Also for the record, Windy is not a basketball official. Windy was not mentioned in my original question. I just wanted opinions. I am sure there are others that feel Windy's point of view are right. But I asked the question to see if there were situations that apply outside of replay. Windy has come here name calling because I am not a member of his organization in the Chicagoland area. That is what this is about and why he has come here and called me all these names. I do not know his email and do not care to talk to him thru email. He is a troll that cannot stand for an RIT to be seen as a success. I do not know why the moderators let his personal rants go on. JR and I have stuck to the issues of the debate. That is why we are here; I cannot speak for the other person. ;)

Peace

This is idiotic.

By rule, one official cannot overrule (unilaterally overturn, make invalid, change or deny a decision) another official's call. Example: C calls 3 seconds on A1, T blows the whistle to declare A1 did not violate the 3 second rule. This cannot be done by rule.

However, any official can, by rule, bring potentially new information to the calling official at any time. Example: L gives the ball to B on an OOB off A1, C comes in to tell L that he saw the ball go OOB off B1. This is perfectly acceptable by rule. In this case the L decides whether or not the new information has standing and whether or not to change his call.

In practice, how & when it's acceptable to bring new information to the calling official is determined during the pregame.

I agree with that 110%.

Juulie, exactly what I was trying to say. I just needed YOU to say it, apparently ;)

You've got to be joking.

Re: Mommy, make the mean man stop!
 

Hey Brad, would you do me a favor and take out the trash?

JR and Rut - look I agree with you both. And we all know here that there is no basis in the rules for what this Windy guy is saying.

All I was trying to say was - let it go. You are obviously never going to "win" the arguement with him, and any half-brained reader of this post should realise that Windy has no idea.

Just my (metric) two cents :)

JR and Rut - look I agree with you both. And we all know here that there is no basis in the rules for what this Windy guy is saying.

All I was trying to say was - let it go. You are obviously never going to "win" the arguement with him, and any half-brained reader of this post should realise that Windy has no idea.

[/B][/QUOTE]Good advice, Duane.

No problems here. I will take your advice.

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_112.gif' alt='' border=0></a>

Peace

No, I'm absolutely serious. It doesn't matter who says it doesn't turn out that way. For one, it doesn't need to be said during a pre-game or any other time. Secondly, what I'm saying is reality. There is already enough problems with officials watching the ball, you make this comment and you have 4 or 6 eyes on the ball all over the court. One definition of mechanics is "The functional and technical aspects of an activity." Discussing mechanics during pre-game, teaching mechanics from day one will help the game more than saying "just get it right." Just like Rut and JR mentioned, there could be young officials reading this thread and they should know how to do things right. Are there situations where you may need to help your partner out, abosolutely. Should I constantly be looking in his/her primary just in case, absolutely not. I make mistakes on the court all the time and will continue to do so. I can recognize quickly the difference between a partner who helps me out and a partner who is looking in my area all game. If you can't see how saying "just get it right" would allow someone to feel more comfortable watching the ball maybe you haven't worked enough games or uh maybe you are watching the ball!

Tom you're reducing the world to a binary system, and it doesn't work. There are more possibilities in the world than just 1) it always happens this way, OR b) it always happens that way.

As someone who is old enough to be your mother, I'd like to give you a little motherly advice. As I hope you would with your own mother, you can accept any or all of the advice. Here goes:

There are always lots and lots and lots of other possibilities, than just a or b. Part of what "creative geniuses" do in life is find some of the other possibilities that most of us are too small-minded to see. Really, Bill Gates' entire fortune is based on that, even though it may appear as though binary is the foundation for him. Life is just never as simple as yes- or-no.

Here's a little personal hint -- you'll be a lot happier in general when you can accept this fact, and work it into your daily life. For one thing, it makes friendships, work relationships and romances a lot more interesting!

Rainmaker, how do you know you are old enough to be my mother? You tell me how old you are and I will tell you if you are old enough. :) It is unfortunate that you assume, from some discussions about basketball, that I need to apply your motherly advice to my life. I'm open-minded enough that your statement alone made me start to think about some of those possibilities enough that I got dizzy :D I will have to call my wife now!

I understand everything you said but well written words of advice do not make what you say true. The same can be said for what I posted. However, I do have the experience (in different parts of the country which is turning into a positive thing) in games, camps and clinics to say that in Phoenix, Mississippi, Las Vegas, California (limited) and the east coast "just get it right" is not needed. Getting it right is assumed and in the places I've mentioned, which your area spills into during summer camps, saying that gives refs a reason to look all over the court. I guess the other possiblity would be a ref watches the ball sometimes. Everything doesn't have 100 possibilities and this might be one of those things. Have I been guilty of watching the ball? Certainly. Have you? So the question is does that statement give license to watch the ball. I think, to an extent beyond dual coverage, that it does. I also think this isn't a good thing since ball watching is already in the game too much. I guess you think it doesn't or it has no effect on a ref watching the ball or not. That is cool. We can agree to disagree. I hope we aren't debating whether watching the ball is OK or not.



[Edited by tomegun on Aug 12th, 2004 at 10:23 AM]

Sniff sniff..that was beautiful...

But I can't let something you said pass without comment. The one one thing Bill Gates did NOT use to amass his fortune was creative genius. Closer to the truth to say Gates made the 19th century banker/railroad robber barons look like Mother Teresa.

Lemme guess. When you were a kid, you had poster of Steve Jobs hanging in your room? :D

Apparently name calling is a problem here.

I thought that as officials we would be a little thicker skinned when someone was clever and derisive.

If you read my original post, I meant no disrespect to any of my cage brethren. In fact, I offered kudos for doing a tough juob very well. Go back and read it.

However, a few of you feel the need to dismiss me as "only a baseball guy". That seems a little unfair. I don't pretend to know your sport, I'm just a fan. I did not critique a technique or rule interp. I simply offered a counterpoint to the thread starter's attempt to drag an issue onto this board after it had been closed on the baseball site. I was alerted to his thread and waited to see what the responses bore out. A couple of members seemed to agree with the methodology and immediately they were dismissed and names were called. That sounds a little hypocritical. Maybe that's why Brad let it go...

Name calling?

Here's a name I bet you've been called a few times:

Holier-than-thou.

Only since you showed up, Windy.Name calling seems to be a problem on the baseball forum today too, doesn't it?

WindyCityBlue- "Rut and Jurassic have involved me in their <font color = red>moronic</font> attempt to debate..."

Here's the link, Windy:
http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...5&pagenumber=3

"Moronic", Windy?

Lah,me!

PS- Sorry, Oz.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 12th, 2004 at 03:16 PM]

Yea, okay, whatever...

Hey, look, I can copy Windy's post...
 

"Moronic" is an adjective describing the subject "attempt".
If you consider that name calling, then you should really get out of officiating! Is it okay to call an official "overweight", "nearsighted", "horrific"? (all descriptive adjectives that have negative connotations) This is the best you can do?

By the way, that wasn't a very complicated post, why would you need to edit it? The grammar complexities, maybe???

Still waiting for "clever."