Had a couple of weird things this weekend with respect to game management that I wanted to toss out there.
Subs at the table is an interesting subject. For the last 10 years, I have been very good at being aware of when subs are being put in by a coach. I saw it as great game awareness and good game management to put my hand up to allow time for the sub to come in, or hold the ball until I gave it to the thrower. I watched some games earlier this year on television, and the Pac-10 guys are not doing that. I found that strange,but have really noticed since then that if the sub is not ready at the table, the ball goes in...And nobody bitches about it. I have started to not worry about waiting, and to be honest it has made game flow better. No more line of subs staggering one at a time into a game like a bunch of hobos. No more sending in a sub without really knowing who is coming out. Where does this help? In the end of a blowout game, when subs are staggering in haphazardly, and we are just waving them in without really paying attention--and the losing coach wants a T for 6 on the floor. We have no excuse for that. Coaches need to be organized. You are doing the game, and yourselves, a favor by not prolonging the stoppage of play. Whatever you gain by looking game aware or accommodating the coach is NOT worth the risk. As always, make your choice, but this is a choice I have made this year, and I think it is the best thing to do.
Another one--when discussing things with a player, coach, or another official, give them an out. I had my favorite occurrence recently, players chesting up and yapping resulting in the double T. Things then got really interesting when someone asked why racist statements can be made on the floor. I never heard anything racist, but there was a lot of energy about it. My response was, "I'm not saying it did not happen, but I did not hear it." Understand that everyone gets emotional and has opinions. By giving them an out, it prevents bad feelings. Avoiding absoultes, unless the film will show that you are without question 100% correct (which happens far less frequently than you think), you are always better off acknowledging the opinion without saying they are completely wrong. "I hear you coach, I just did not pull the trigger," works a lot more often than, "It was not a foul, coach." There are times for absolutes. I have found that most of us can minimize or lessen our use of them, and it will help your relationships with players and coaches, without succumbing to them. Trust me, they know when they are wrong, and sometimes it takes a day for them to realize it, just like it takes us a day sometimes to realize and admit we could have done something better. Giving someone an out is always a good thing to do during conflict.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Red/Yellow/Green
Got a great little philosophy from Will "The Thrill" McKay last week. We've all noticed that the NBA and NCAA D-1 guys have seemed to call tight out front and loose near the basket. Thrill picked up a way to understand that at a camp last summer. I've added a twist to it that I think further accentuates this.
Think of the basket as the capitol city of the basketball court. The offense wants to invade and take the city by scoring. The defense wants to protect its basket and prevent the invader from scoring. The offense can launch missiles with finesse by gunning long-range 3's, or they can grind out close-range shots by setting screens, crashing to the basket, and using physical dominance to get there.
Thrill will tell you to divide the front court into 3 areas, the Red Zone, the Yellow Zone, and the Green Zone.
The Red Zone is above the top of the key. The only scoring attack from here is a long-range bomb. It's not near the battle front of the war on the basket. Hand-to-hand combat should be rare. You don't need or want rough post play 30 feet from the basket. Therefore, you should be intolerant of physical play when you are more than 20 feet from the basket. Bad screen 30 feet fro the basket is not going to provide an imminent scoring threat, so it will be called tightly. Finesse and quickness rule the Red Zone.
The Yellow Zone inside the 3-point arc but outside the key. Screens may be set, guys start to drive the basket. However, you are still quite a way away from the basket. It will not be an area of all-out defense. The offense is still trying to position themselves to attack the basket. You will want to let a little more go than in the Red Zone, but still understand that the offense has not gotten into the Green Zone yet, where victory becomes imminent, and the defense may get desperate.
The Green Zone is the key and the post area. Ball gets in there on post play, the defense will rush down there to protect the basket. Coaches will scream at the defense to prevent open lay-ins. Players will try and play through contact in the final push for the position or shot. Just like Russia piled millions of people to protect Moscow to the last man in World War 2, the good team will desperately try and prevent the basket when the ball gets in the Green Zone. Again, the threshold for a foul here is higher than in the Yellow Zone, and lot more than the Green Zone.
Fouls are fouls. But the strategy of the game is to score baskets. Understanding how physical the game should be with respect to how far away from the basket the basketball is, and where the offense is trying to go with the basketball, will help you get the right balance of when fouls should be called, and when you should pass. This metaphor and description may illustrate a way to think about it and give you something to think about. Or, it may not. I liked it--it's what I see on TV, and there is a reason they're there and most of us are not.
Think of the basket as the capitol city of the basketball court. The offense wants to invade and take the city by scoring. The defense wants to protect its basket and prevent the invader from scoring. The offense can launch missiles with finesse by gunning long-range 3's, or they can grind out close-range shots by setting screens, crashing to the basket, and using physical dominance to get there.
Thrill will tell you to divide the front court into 3 areas, the Red Zone, the Yellow Zone, and the Green Zone.
The Red Zone is above the top of the key. The only scoring attack from here is a long-range bomb. It's not near the battle front of the war on the basket. Hand-to-hand combat should be rare. You don't need or want rough post play 30 feet from the basket. Therefore, you should be intolerant of physical play when you are more than 20 feet from the basket. Bad screen 30 feet fro the basket is not going to provide an imminent scoring threat, so it will be called tightly. Finesse and quickness rule the Red Zone.
The Yellow Zone inside the 3-point arc but outside the key. Screens may be set, guys start to drive the basket. However, you are still quite a way away from the basket. It will not be an area of all-out defense. The offense is still trying to position themselves to attack the basket. You will want to let a little more go than in the Red Zone, but still understand that the offense has not gotten into the Green Zone yet, where victory becomes imminent, and the defense may get desperate.
The Green Zone is the key and the post area. Ball gets in there on post play, the defense will rush down there to protect the basket. Coaches will scream at the defense to prevent open lay-ins. Players will try and play through contact in the final push for the position or shot. Just like Russia piled millions of people to protect Moscow to the last man in World War 2, the good team will desperately try and prevent the basket when the ball gets in the Green Zone. Again, the threshold for a foul here is higher than in the Yellow Zone, and lot more than the Green Zone.
Fouls are fouls. But the strategy of the game is to score baskets. Understanding how physical the game should be with respect to how far away from the basket the basketball is, and where the offense is trying to go with the basketball, will help you get the right balance of when fouls should be called, and when you should pass. This metaphor and description may illustrate a way to think about it and give you something to think about. Or, it may not. I liked it--it's what I see on TV, and there is a reason they're there and most of us are not.
Pre-Game The "Automatics"
The past couple of years, the powers that be have required that basketball officiating should become more science than art. Part of that has been the introduction of "absolutes" that allegedly MUST be called. Most officials have developed their own styles and philosophies based on the rule book, their knowledge of the game, and the instructions and feedback they receive from peers who are higher on the food chain, and supervisors who can help them advance or keep them down.
"Rough play" has been an emphasis for years. As a former "let them play" official, I initially bristled at the NCAA and supervisors telling me that I had to call certain things every time. Last year, they spoke of automatic consequences for coaches being out of the coaching box. My initial reaction was, "Gee, I can handle coaches. This sucks. I don't want to do that." I eventually followed that directive, and it really was not a big deal. I realized that if I did not enforce that, and something went wrong, I'm vulnerable. 99% of the time, nothing would occur if I let the coach roam out of the box, but why take the chance? This year, they have told us that crashes on drives where both players go to the ground--better have a whistle. Dribbler goes to the floor and there was any contact at all from a defender? Foul on defense every time.
I figured there was no way this would be enforced. Then I saw a UW game in November. 4 times within 2 minutes, a dribbler 30 feet from the basket going east-west (nowhere good) went down on minimal contact, and all 4 got called. Romar went ballistic on every one of them. He may have gotten T'd. Crowd went crazy. I'm thinking, "Did they really have to call them?" After reflection--yes they did.
More robot, less traditional "game management". That's where basketball officiating is headed. It's why I talk a lot about understanding what the film will show, and ensuring that your judgment is good enough that the film can be your best friend, and that you will be aware enough to admit weak or wrong calls, but be firm when you now you have it right. That is how you become a great official.
All that said, there's a bell curve for everything. Many officials don't care about this. Many are incapable of picking it up and incorporating it into their game. That's where communication--and pre-gaming--can be a huge help.
I had a game last weekend where I am not sure if my philosophies meshed 100% with my crew, and I went and called a couple of "absolutes" with late whistles. We had a chance to chat about it, and after the chat, I believe that we all moved closer together in terms of what we would all be calling, and it helped. I also realized that I could have talked about "absolutes" in the pre-game. Even if my partners don't agree, the discussion could have moved us closer to alignment and agreement, which is better than not moving closer at all. "Absolutes" should be discussed in a pre-game!
For the foreseeable future, the questions I will ask in the pre-game with respect to absolutes:
1. All crashes in the key where both players go to the floor have to have a whistle, and I will try to always get one. Are you guys going to do the same?
2. Dribblers going to the floor need to have a whistle. In my primary, it is automatic. Will you guys do the same? I probably will NOT call that out of my primary, just want you to know what I will do so you can do the same or be aware of the difference in case our explanations to coaches differ.
3. Coach out of box coaching? I'm going to ask him to get back in and not mark in the book. Coach out of box yelling on a non-obvious call? Same thing. Coach being irrational out of the box? Warn, then T on 2nd infraction. When will you warn in the book, and when will you automatically T in terms of where he's standing? We need to be the same here and I'm willing to change what I'd normally do to match you guys, if necessary. Need to be the same here.
For me, the first 2 are very important. You may have other ideas. My point is to try and define automatics. I've been around a lot of guys who talk the game and then don't walk the game. They'll tell you a coach out of the box is a automatic T, then have a coach accost them on the floor and they'll do nothing. But by pre-gaming, you're maximizing your chances of success. Makes common sense to me.
"Rough play" has been an emphasis for years. As a former "let them play" official, I initially bristled at the NCAA and supervisors telling me that I had to call certain things every time. Last year, they spoke of automatic consequences for coaches being out of the coaching box. My initial reaction was, "Gee, I can handle coaches. This sucks. I don't want to do that." I eventually followed that directive, and it really was not a big deal. I realized that if I did not enforce that, and something went wrong, I'm vulnerable. 99% of the time, nothing would occur if I let the coach roam out of the box, but why take the chance? This year, they have told us that crashes on drives where both players go to the ground--better have a whistle. Dribbler goes to the floor and there was any contact at all from a defender? Foul on defense every time.
I figured there was no way this would be enforced. Then I saw a UW game in November. 4 times within 2 minutes, a dribbler 30 feet from the basket going east-west (nowhere good) went down on minimal contact, and all 4 got called. Romar went ballistic on every one of them. He may have gotten T'd. Crowd went crazy. I'm thinking, "Did they really have to call them?" After reflection--yes they did.
More robot, less traditional "game management". That's where basketball officiating is headed. It's why I talk a lot about understanding what the film will show, and ensuring that your judgment is good enough that the film can be your best friend, and that you will be aware enough to admit weak or wrong calls, but be firm when you now you have it right. That is how you become a great official.
All that said, there's a bell curve for everything. Many officials don't care about this. Many are incapable of picking it up and incorporating it into their game. That's where communication--and pre-gaming--can be a huge help.
I had a game last weekend where I am not sure if my philosophies meshed 100% with my crew, and I went and called a couple of "absolutes" with late whistles. We had a chance to chat about it, and after the chat, I believe that we all moved closer together in terms of what we would all be calling, and it helped. I also realized that I could have talked about "absolutes" in the pre-game. Even if my partners don't agree, the discussion could have moved us closer to alignment and agreement, which is better than not moving closer at all. "Absolutes" should be discussed in a pre-game!
For the foreseeable future, the questions I will ask in the pre-game with respect to absolutes:
1. All crashes in the key where both players go to the floor have to have a whistle, and I will try to always get one. Are you guys going to do the same?
2. Dribblers going to the floor need to have a whistle. In my primary, it is automatic. Will you guys do the same? I probably will NOT call that out of my primary, just want you to know what I will do so you can do the same or be aware of the difference in case our explanations to coaches differ.
3. Coach out of box coaching? I'm going to ask him to get back in and not mark in the book. Coach out of box yelling on a non-obvious call? Same thing. Coach being irrational out of the box? Warn, then T on 2nd infraction. When will you warn in the book, and when will you automatically T in terms of where he's standing? We need to be the same here and I'm willing to change what I'd normally do to match you guys, if necessary. Need to be the same here.
For me, the first 2 are very important. You may have other ideas. My point is to try and define automatics. I've been around a lot of guys who talk the game and then don't walk the game. They'll tell you a coach out of the box is a automatic T, then have a coach accost them on the floor and they'll do nothing. But by pre-gaming, you're maximizing your chances of success. Makes common sense to me.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Rules, Rules, Rules
I have to now chime in on the WSU/Whoregon game last week, when WSU won the game, only to have subs storm the court, resulting in a T with 0.3 seconds left. Whoregon proceeded to tie the game and win it in the subsequent OT.
Mike Littlewood was the R. I don't know him. Couldn't recognize him. He did what he had to do in that situation. He had no choice. The wrong team won the game. He knows that. It is probably bothering him today, and will probably bother him for a while, which Coug fans probably do not realize and may take some vindictive satisfaction from. But in the end, Mike Littlewood was right.
Now some chucklehead named Ed Bilik, who is the Secretary-Editor of the NCAA Basketball Rules committee has thrown Littlewood under the bus. Bill McCabe, Pac-10 0supervisor, kind of has, too, but in a lawyerly way. Bilik decided to post a bulletin to all NCAA officials after the game inferring that Littlewood did not know the rules. Then McCabe basically said that he backs someone's judgment, but not knowing a rule is subject to a trip to Siberia.
To cap it, John Adams, who is the top dog for NCAA officials, said he felt that Littlewood was not wrong. So why would a dorky policy wonk like Bilik do what he did? Because he is an ass. I am embarrassed for the NCAA and Pac-10. Adams should get him removed from his post immediately. How could a 75-year-old guy whose claim to fame is coaching and being the AD at Springfield College (that's in Massachusetts just so you don't have to look that up) be even a remote player in this? Maybe he wears a hoodie like Belichick, but come on....How about someone who has actually been part of the big time that does not suffer from senility or a burning desire to stay relevant? Bilik must have a Bowden-sized ego.
Littlewood's opinion was that when subs enter during a live ball without being beckoned, it is a T by rule. Bilik's opinion, stated after the fact, was that since nothing interfered with Oregon's ability to inbound the ball, that no T should have been called. Great. Now not only does Easy Ed expect us to keep coaches in their boxes, but we can let celebrating players spill onto the court, slap guys who make baskets on the ass as they run by, and as long as there is no disadvantage, it's OK.
Ernesto Kent, pride of Mexico and Tiger Woods' role model, screamed for the T. Littlewood has to make that judgment. If a player entered the court at any other time, it is automatic. Why would it be different at 0.3 seconds? Rules are rules, and there are gray areas of the rule book that must be decided black and white quickly at the scene of the crime.
I wish Littlewood did not call the T. As a Husky, I don't like WSU, but I absolutely despise Whoregon. However, I would bet my officiating job that had Littlewood not called the T and gave Bilik's reason, he gets hammered for it by McCabe and Adams. And Littlewood knew that. He had no choice. And Billik and McCabe killed him for it.
No win situation for Mike Littlewood. My hat is off to him. I also feel bad for the NCAA. This would have never happened with Hank Nichols at he helm. I hope John Adams sees this. I also hope Bilik does, too, and he sees the bold and italics. At his age, I doubt he can use a computer or read a screen without a magnifying glass, but hell, Robert Byrd is still in the Senate, too, so who knows.
John Adams: You have to put Mike Littlewood into at least the second weekend of the NCAA Tournament. He's more than earned it!
Mike Littlewood was the R. I don't know him. Couldn't recognize him. He did what he had to do in that situation. He had no choice. The wrong team won the game. He knows that. It is probably bothering him today, and will probably bother him for a while, which Coug fans probably do not realize and may take some vindictive satisfaction from. But in the end, Mike Littlewood was right.
Now some chucklehead named Ed Bilik, who is the Secretary-Editor of the NCAA Basketball Rules committee has thrown Littlewood under the bus. Bill McCabe, Pac-10 0supervisor, kind of has, too, but in a lawyerly way. Bilik decided to post a bulletin to all NCAA officials after the game inferring that Littlewood did not know the rules. Then McCabe basically said that he backs someone's judgment, but not knowing a rule is subject to a trip to Siberia.
To cap it, John Adams, who is the top dog for NCAA officials, said he felt that Littlewood was not wrong. So why would a dorky policy wonk like Bilik do what he did? Because he is an ass. I am embarrassed for the NCAA and Pac-10. Adams should get him removed from his post immediately. How could a 75-year-old guy whose claim to fame is coaching and being the AD at Springfield College (that's in Massachusetts just so you don't have to look that up) be even a remote player in this? Maybe he wears a hoodie like Belichick, but come on....How about someone who has actually been part of the big time that does not suffer from senility or a burning desire to stay relevant? Bilik must have a Bowden-sized ego.
Littlewood's opinion was that when subs enter during a live ball without being beckoned, it is a T by rule. Bilik's opinion, stated after the fact, was that since nothing interfered with Oregon's ability to inbound the ball, that no T should have been called. Great. Now not only does Easy Ed expect us to keep coaches in their boxes, but we can let celebrating players spill onto the court, slap guys who make baskets on the ass as they run by, and as long as there is no disadvantage, it's OK.
Ernesto Kent, pride of Mexico and Tiger Woods' role model, screamed for the T. Littlewood has to make that judgment. If a player entered the court at any other time, it is automatic. Why would it be different at 0.3 seconds? Rules are rules, and there are gray areas of the rule book that must be decided black and white quickly at the scene of the crime.
I wish Littlewood did not call the T. As a Husky, I don't like WSU, but I absolutely despise Whoregon. However, I would bet my officiating job that had Littlewood not called the T and gave Bilik's reason, he gets hammered for it by McCabe and Adams. And Littlewood knew that. He had no choice. And Billik and McCabe killed him for it.
No win situation for Mike Littlewood. My hat is off to him. I also feel bad for the NCAA. This would have never happened with Hank Nichols at he helm. I hope John Adams sees this. I also hope Bilik does, too, and he sees the bold and italics. At his age, I doubt he can use a computer or read a screen without a magnifying glass, but hell, Robert Byrd is still in the Senate, too, so who knows.
John Adams: You have to put Mike Littlewood into at least the second weekend of the NCAA Tournament. He's more than earned it!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
2006 vs. 2010
My progression as an official has been interesting. There are times I wish I could go back and mentor myself, because it would have been great to have gotten better faster. I was fortunate to find some folks that took a very keen interest in giving me brutal and honest feedback after about 7-8 years, and after taking 2-3 years of that, I finally found a comfort zone and figured a lot of stuff out. 2005-2006 is when all the pieces finally started fitting together, and I understood how to manage a game, while at the same time understanding when I did not have to manage anything.
I have continued to make changes the past 4-5 years and they continue to help me. I have made some recent changes that go against what I believed 4-5 years ago, but my experience is showing me that I was wrong. I want to list some for you to think about. There is no right or wrong on these, but they have been good for me.
1. I call less travels that I did 5 years ago. I have learned that most advanced officials (higher level and/or just great officials) will tell you that it is hard to call traveling well, and that they flat miss more travels than they would like. Dave Hall missed a bigtime travel in the Husky game last week, letting a player get up with the ball after he dove to get it. It happens. But that is better than calling the phantom travel. I think as a younger official it makes sense to get what I call the "baby" travel. It shows you understood he traveled and were right on top of it to make the call. Over time, I think that when you get the big travels that everyone knows is one, and leave some of the subtle or unclear ones alone, it's better for the game and helps with how you are perceived as on official. It is easy to call a lot of travels, and it does not make you a great official. Last point on this--if the defense makes a player travel, you must get that, period. That does show you understand the game, and that the defender won that play. Gotta give that one to him.
2. OOB calls. This is a great one. 5 years ago, the top guys would tell you that if there is a slap foul and the ball goes out of bounds, and it is not really clear, to skip the foul and let the ball stay with the offensive team. That was how to "manage the game" and keep the foul count lower and the coaches happier. Of course, I took that to another level. Big foul, player loses ball out of bounds in full view, and I keep it there. I then tell the angry coach that I passed on a foul (because that's how good I am) and kept the ball there (justice). Bad move. That's never a good explanation, the film shows you suck, and it's a lot easier to call the foul. End of story.
3. Reminding coaches of TO's. That's cool--you are showing the coach how smart and aware you are. The last 2 years, my attitude has been, if they don't know, so be it. The home book is what I will go to, every issue or debate arising from that is between the schools. No need for me to be involved. That goes for JV kids playing too many quarters, too. "Don't make what is not your business your business." I'm still working that idea across the board, as well.
4. Evening out fouls. 3 years ago I had a game that was 10-1, with the team with 10 pressing out of control all half long. Of course, every call after 5-1 was met with howls of protest. The half ended 10-1. It should have ended 13-1. None of the 3 were in my primary, but I could have helped on all 3 of them, and I passed because it was 10-1. Guess what? The team with 10 was a much worse team all game long. They made a ton of 3's in the second half and won the game by 2 points. If we call the fouls in the first half, I honestly believe the game would have turned out differently. So did the coach that lost. I learned a huge lesson from that--you call the game the way it is played and let the film be your judge.
5. Allowing crappy teams or teams getting blown out more leeway. The thought process was that this may help prevent hard feelings and frustration, helping stave off cheap shots or non-basketball plays borne from them. I now disagree. For the same reasons above, let the film be your guide. The subs compete every bit as hard; ref your same game.
6. Not calling fouls at the end of game that are not competitive. For the same reasons as #5, call it til the end. Subs deserve your effort, the parents who showed up deserve to see their kids who don't play much be judged the same way, and the strategy might backfire--some subs are trying to prove something, and not getting calls may results in something bad happening. Call the game until the final buzzer.
7. Getting it right versus the speed at which you do it. Get the game going. If you cannot get a definitive answer quickly, have the R make a decision and get it going. Prolonged stoppages are never good for anyone, no matter how cool it looks on TV when they go to the monitor. I bet you don't think it's cool on NFL games. It's 10 times worse in a HS or small college gym. Trust me.
Paul Simpkins, a local official done good, will say that officiating has gone away from a "feel" type game to a "science" game. The new philosophy is to be more robot. With all the gray areas in basketball officiating, it is still more art than science, but when you can, if you think about what the film will show, it will be you ally more times than not. That probably explains the items above and how I approach the game differently today than I did 4 years ago. It's also why I am a lot better, too. Hope some of this does the same for you.
I have continued to make changes the past 4-5 years and they continue to help me. I have made some recent changes that go against what I believed 4-5 years ago, but my experience is showing me that I was wrong. I want to list some for you to think about. There is no right or wrong on these, but they have been good for me.
1. I call less travels that I did 5 years ago. I have learned that most advanced officials (higher level and/or just great officials) will tell you that it is hard to call traveling well, and that they flat miss more travels than they would like. Dave Hall missed a bigtime travel in the Husky game last week, letting a player get up with the ball after he dove to get it. It happens. But that is better than calling the phantom travel. I think as a younger official it makes sense to get what I call the "baby" travel. It shows you understood he traveled and were right on top of it to make the call. Over time, I think that when you get the big travels that everyone knows is one, and leave some of the subtle or unclear ones alone, it's better for the game and helps with how you are perceived as on official. It is easy to call a lot of travels, and it does not make you a great official. Last point on this--if the defense makes a player travel, you must get that, period. That does show you understand the game, and that the defender won that play. Gotta give that one to him.
2. OOB calls. This is a great one. 5 years ago, the top guys would tell you that if there is a slap foul and the ball goes out of bounds, and it is not really clear, to skip the foul and let the ball stay with the offensive team. That was how to "manage the game" and keep the foul count lower and the coaches happier. Of course, I took that to another level. Big foul, player loses ball out of bounds in full view, and I keep it there. I then tell the angry coach that I passed on a foul (because that's how good I am) and kept the ball there (justice). Bad move. That's never a good explanation, the film shows you suck, and it's a lot easier to call the foul. End of story.
3. Reminding coaches of TO's. That's cool--you are showing the coach how smart and aware you are. The last 2 years, my attitude has been, if they don't know, so be it. The home book is what I will go to, every issue or debate arising from that is between the schools. No need for me to be involved. That goes for JV kids playing too many quarters, too. "Don't make what is not your business your business." I'm still working that idea across the board, as well.
4. Evening out fouls. 3 years ago I had a game that was 10-1, with the team with 10 pressing out of control all half long. Of course, every call after 5-1 was met with howls of protest. The half ended 10-1. It should have ended 13-1. None of the 3 were in my primary, but I could have helped on all 3 of them, and I passed because it was 10-1. Guess what? The team with 10 was a much worse team all game long. They made a ton of 3's in the second half and won the game by 2 points. If we call the fouls in the first half, I honestly believe the game would have turned out differently. So did the coach that lost. I learned a huge lesson from that--you call the game the way it is played and let the film be your judge.
5. Allowing crappy teams or teams getting blown out more leeway. The thought process was that this may help prevent hard feelings and frustration, helping stave off cheap shots or non-basketball plays borne from them. I now disagree. For the same reasons above, let the film be your guide. The subs compete every bit as hard; ref your same game.
6. Not calling fouls at the end of game that are not competitive. For the same reasons as #5, call it til the end. Subs deserve your effort, the parents who showed up deserve to see their kids who don't play much be judged the same way, and the strategy might backfire--some subs are trying to prove something, and not getting calls may results in something bad happening. Call the game until the final buzzer.
7. Getting it right versus the speed at which you do it. Get the game going. If you cannot get a definitive answer quickly, have the R make a decision and get it going. Prolonged stoppages are never good for anyone, no matter how cool it looks on TV when they go to the monitor. I bet you don't think it's cool on NFL games. It's 10 times worse in a HS or small college gym. Trust me.
Paul Simpkins, a local official done good, will say that officiating has gone away from a "feel" type game to a "science" game. The new philosophy is to be more robot. With all the gray areas in basketball officiating, it is still more art than science, but when you can, if you think about what the film will show, it will be you ally more times than not. That probably explains the items above and how I approach the game differently today than I did 4 years ago. It's also why I am a lot better, too. Hope some of this does the same for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)