In my last entry, I discussed the psyche of an NBA coach and player during the strategy process for a one possession opportunity to win the game. At a glance, this decision may be easy, but when considering uncontrollable forces, ah let’s say… the officials, it can alter everything. Throughout this post, an outcome or conclusion was drawn, and a new strategy can be developed to not only supply success, but create a perspective not seen by most. A perspective that yours truly, The Ref would like to discuss even further, but from the opposite side… mine:

How does an official go after the last moment in the game? Do you call it tight? What are your partners thinking? Who is going to get the ball? What are you going to do to allow the players to dictate the game?

Ah hah, that’s the question that is the most relevant of all. The players dictate the game, never an official. An official’s job is to govern or manage the integrity of the game. Another official once told me, “a referee’s job is to make sure that the other team loses.” Well that’s sounds kind of ridiculous and crude, but it’s true. That is our purpose, but as a service to the game, I want to make sure the players decide the outcome of the game, not I. However, this is where, the psychology of the buzzer beater gets hazy.

Every official is different, whether it is belief of practice, observations of the game, or egotistical values. That last one is signaling (see what I did there) out Joe Crawford, who if you remember threw out Tim Duncan two years ago for sitting on the bench, seriously, how can you throw out Tim Duncan; not even a microphone can pick up his voice. Anyway, Crawford is the example of many, there are others just like him, but this is where my conclusion of the previous post will contradict this one. How does one control or convince a partner who thinks differently than you. It can change the game. It can take the game out of the players hands. It’s not fair, but that’s the ugly beauty of the game. It’s creates variable change, an equation that is constantly being thrown a new sign. You know in your senior year of high school when you have to take Calculus, and you constantly thought: How I am supposed to use the quotient rule with a square root in the denominator. If there wasn’t the square root, I could figure this out. It’s terrible. You start to think of other ways around it, almost compromising with it…Sound familiar.

How does one conquer this? A nice dinner conversation? How about a game of Balderdash (I love that game). Or how about: Communication. An official must discuss every facet of the situation at hand with their partners. How much time is left? Who is going to get the ball? Do they have a foul to give? And the ultimate question: When there is contact on the airborne shooter, are you going to make the call? Every situation has different answers, except the last one. As a referee, I always tell my fellow comrades, “I am not calling a foul unless someone is killed.” Yeah, that’s not a misprint, and many officials feel the same way. Others feel differently. They call the game the same way from the tip to the buzzer. My rebuttal to that is, if that’s the case, then why is so much pressure and energy put into this part of the game. It’s crunch time baby. The players have to take care of this one. Let them play, fans don’t want to see you make a call.

Through this, coaches and players strategy alter due to the inconsistency of communication from one referee to another.

Now let’s go back to the first post. Can you blame Kevin Durant to do what he did? Or what about Doc Rivers? Let’s see if you can answer as quickly as you did there. The ball is in your court. What would you do since you know this new and pertinent information?

Remember This Play?