No help from R2?

[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.........

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by 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.........

1. You cover this in the pre-match. If I'm screened on a ball handling situation, you'll see a "deer in the headlights" look, that means, "I need help." Barring that, don't offer help.

2. Provided you cover it appropriately prematch, no. From the floor, a ball may look more "above the net" than from the stand, and a player may look like she touches the line when you are looking from the floor 10+ feet away moreso than if you are looking down on the play. You offer help, I either whistle or give a safe signal, and we go from there. No throwing under the bus unless the R2 says something like, "I TRIED TO TELL HIM SHE WAS BACK ROW BUT HE WOULDN'T LISTEN." Apples and oranges.

3. Now you're either stretching so far you're pulling a hamstring or intentionally trying to stir the pot. When has anyone said they only want help on ANY violation if they were screened? This was about ball handling, not all R2 assistance in general.

Again, cover it in your pre-match, and the likelihood is much greater that all will be well, but if you don't discuss these situations and how you want to handle them should they arise, then you run the risk of having controversy that otherwise could have been averted.

[oldsetter]

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

[Antonio.King]

Sure it is, if you're not flailing it around. Just lay it across your chest.

[oldsetter]

oh, I meant back row block. Careless typing.