No help from R2?

[oldsetter]

A. King,
I assume by screened, you would mean a players body between you and the ball. I would also wonder what criteria you would use for calling a 'double' (as in over hand setting motion) when you can not see both hands (contact points) due to the players relative position on the court to you?

Are you saying that there are no positions on the court or orientations of the players body that you do not want or need help from the R2?

Andy,
As your R2, any unusually contact that I have a very good view of, I would look at you to see if you glanced at me, I would have a discrete signal for you to ignore or take if you wanted it, or I like a slight head nod for play on. Hopefully there would be very few of these in the match. And I would think that a good R2 could adjust to the standards of the R1.

I had an official tell me that I should make the call (I'm mainly considering these doubles where you can't see both hands) based on what I see and not expect any help from the R2. My response was, that if I did not see two contacts or prolonged contact, then it was going to have to be legal. (Did not go over well.) Which the reply was that if it was over controlled it was prolonged and if it was under controlled it was a double. I don't mind an argument to develop good philosophies so I replied that I've been making this way too hard. I was actually looking for two contacts on doubles.

I find this very frustrating and appreciate any insight anyone is willing to provide. It appears that there is a discrepancy between the rule book and the way many official practice. Also I have found that many officials are very defensive about there ball handling philosophies. Whew. I guess if you are on shaky ground, you don't like to be challenged. ; )

[pavbref]

In my experience, I have seen R2's who want to call every fault, and R2's that barely are capable of handling their own responsibilities. Because I'm a newer official, I generally accept any help I can get from my team on ball handling.

I have found that most of our newer officials do not offer help either because they do not know how or because they do not have the confidence in making a call with a more experienced official. There are some experienced officials that allow their egos get in the way, and think that because they were assigned as an R2, that they don't need to help offer assistance.

I try to offer help by stepping away from the pole and discretely showing prolonged contacts and doubles, and if play continues, I move on with my responsibilities. I discuss this with my partner before the match, and try to discuss why my help was not accepted after the match to improve my abilities and techniques.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by oldsetter

...Andy,
As your R2, any unusually contact that I have a very good view of, I would look at you to see if you glanced at me, I would have a discrete signal for you to ignore or take if you wanted it, or I like a slight head nod for play on. Hopefully there would be very few of these in the match. And I would think that a good R2 could adjust to the standards of the R1....

This is what I would prefer as an R1.....If I see something that I was not sure of due to angle or body position of the player, I would take a quick look at my R2. If s/he have a discreet signal in front of and close in to your body, I will take it, if not, we keep playing. I agree that I would not expect very many of these during the match.

When I am R2, if I see something that I feel should be called ball handling wise, I will give the discreet signal for a second, it's up to my R1 to take it or not...either way makes no difference to me. I will also say that as an R2, I try very hard to concentrate on my area of responsibility and there are very few instances where I would even have a good look at a ball handling fault.

[Antonio.King]

The responsibility of ball handling does not fall under the R2, and much like Felix has already stated, it can get you in trouble even if you're infrequently suggesting ball handling as the R2.

Whenever I'm the R1, and I'm working with someone brand new (that I haven't worked with before and have never seen them), I always start by saying I won't look at you for anything ball handling wise.

I would strongly urge against practicing the habit of offering help on ball handling as the R2. Everyone has a difference in opinion on what should and should not be called. Selling out your partner (because that's essentially what you're doing by questioning their judgement), does nothing for you in the long run.

A good R2 will prepare to defend their partner's judgement (not frequently mind you) regardless of their personal opinion on the matter. You're a team, and you're not there to step on one another; you're there to work together.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

....Whenever I'm the R1, and I'm working with someone brand new (that I haven't worked with before and have never seen them), I always start by saying I won't look at you for anything ball handling wise.

But in post #3, you stated:

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

....In terms of ball handling, I always tell my R2 that I won't look at them for anything ball handling unless I'm screened. If it's the case where I'm screened on a potential caught or thrown ball, I'll happily take their opinion...

These two statements seem to contradict each other....are you going to look to your R2 for help or not?

[Antonio.King]

I should clarify that the under normal circumstances (your first quote; not screened) I won't ever. If after making a legitimate effort to see something and I cannot, I'll happily glance; doesn't mean I'll take it, but I'll consider what you have to say.

In the past years of officiating, I've never taken a ball handling suggestion of any R2 if that helps give you any indication on how much that's practiced (it's usually newer officials that do this). I rarely put myself in a position as to where I can't judge something on my own. I do, however, tell my partners if I give them the deer in the headlight look, to be prepared, but I haven't had to give that yet. *knock on wood*

So to answer your question, no. In good practice and normal circumstances, no I won't. However, if something hits the fan quickly and I'm unable to form my own opinion on the matter because circumstances beyond my control, I'll take a glance.

Much like volleyball, this isn't a black and white answer. I'll tell you the practice favors black though.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

I'll tell you the practice favors black though.

I'm sure you understand why this made me smile. :-)

[oldsetter]

Well, i have two thoughts.
1. How does the R2 know when you are screened. Sometimes you may be, sometimes you may not. So, if he thinks you are screened and offers help, If you want it you are thankful, and if not, you feel like you are 'under the bus'.

2. Under the bus: Well, the R2 gives discrete help on 4 hits and back row faults.
Are you under the bus if you decide not to take it? How is this different than ball handling. Keep in mind I am not a proponent of the R2 making lots of ball handling calls, but the signals are in the rule book for a reason - and non of them are discrete.

3. And the R2 is now authorized to call back row violations if the R1 misses them, even though I will give the discrete signal first. Of course, if the R1 is not inclined to look at the R2 unless he is screened,


I guess that is 3 thoughts.........

[oldsetter]

one of the worst 'discrete' signals ever, back row attack! Not discrete at all.