Quote:
Originally posted by Back In The Saddle
Quote:
Originally posted by Mlancaster
I for one do not like to use a 2-point signal. If questioned, my response is that if the shot was a "3", it would have been signaled as such.
|
I agree. This is a great team-building technique. Whenever possible you should respond to your partners (on the floor or at the score bench) by snottily reasuring them that if you didn't signal something, it didn't happen. It builds a tremendous sense of confidence on their part to know that you'll never miss anything and they needn't question you about any situation, no matter how ambiguous or doubtful. It rewards what little initiative they might show in asking seemingly legitimate questions with a warm feeling to know that you're willing to educate them in such a fashion. In fact, you might want to use this technique as part of your pre-game conference to assure your partners that they needn't communicate with you on any point whatsoever. It certainly saves time and allows everyone to focus more on their primary responsibility. Yep, I intend to use this technique more! 
|
Sorry BITS but that's a poor response. Mlancaster was expressing that it's a poor mechanic to siganl a 2, when not signaling a 3 should sufficently indicate that the basket is a 2. It has nothing to do with communicating in the manner in which you suggest. It's simply something the scorer should already know.
___________________________________
I'll add to JR's reply. he is absolutely correct. If you fail to signal a 3, it is a correctable error. You cannot come back 10 minutes later and say, "Wait! That was a 3." As he said, it's not a scoring error. it's an error by the official for failing to signal. In the play described, the official was perfectly justified in stopping the game and correcting the situation.