Quote:
Originally Posted by APG
My thing with this session of deciding on rules/mechanics/signals, I don't even think there had to be too many drastic rules changes (though what was asked of us in the survey suggested that big changes will be in the way in the future)...
If you don't want to change too much this year rules wise, is it too much to add some f'n signals to the book?! There are so many common signals that could have been added especially this year...borrowed from the pro/college ranks, that are easy and give clear information. Off the topic of my head:
Hit to the head
Hook
Armbar
Two hands on the dribbler
Trip
Chuck
Violation of verticality (some would say the frankenstein signal)
I'm probably forgetting a signal or two (punch all "offensive fouls" or fists for a blocking foul)...but the point is we could add so many more signals that would more clearly denote what type of foul is called...
Yet they add a signal that officials have been using for at least 10 years already. Most officials are gonna see that "change" and think it was already in the books already.
|
+1. Like I said before, the irony for me is that the evaluated perception of my game is better when I do use these signals to more effectively communicate. Occasionally I stumble across a federation purist who reads me the riot act regarding "approved signals," and I pretend to care, keep my mouth shut, and then move on. Oddly, my schedule continues to improve each year, anyway.