Doesn't matter if the signal happens at the spot or not on this type of foul. Players and coaches aren't looking for a signal. They're incredulous no matter what when this happens...at least that's my experience.

LOL. I actually thought about that after I posted. I get those looks/questions anyway. So, in conclusion, I don't know why I bother signaling that push foul. :confused:

To give the coach ample time to rev up his mouth so you can shut him up for the rest of the game.:D

Signalling the shots or the spot should be included in all fouls. Whether it is a hold, hit, handcheck is irrelevant.

IAABO wants prelim signals for all fouls.

In FIBA, we only give them for block/charge, T, unsporting ( int/f1) or DQ ( flagrant/f2) fouls.

My area supervisor and, of course, the state association where I work preach the importance of showing a good preliminary.

I like the use of a preliminary more so than not when officiating, mainly because there are those times when we as a crew are focused on a matchup or secondary match up in our primary and we don't "see through" a play or maybe don't have it in our peripheral view, thus we don't know why a whistle was blown and play stopped.

The quicker the entire crew knows why play was stopped, the more efficiently a crew can move the game along.

First time poster guys but have been lurking for a while. Looking forward to good discussion with you guys. I think giving a preliminary is a very useful tool in the right scenario to lend credibility. Obviously I think preliminaries should be used in block/charge scenarios but they can really help sell a certain call that may not be obvious to everyone in the gym. Some examples could be a slight hit to the head on a drive to the basket or an elbow tap on a shooter. Have also used a preliminary on an illegal screen play where everyone sees the illegal screen but there was a push from the offensive player on the screener that not everyone may have seen.

Welcome to the forums!

These are some good examples. In my experience, it's the different definitions everyone has of preliminary signals that causes argument. Someone may say they're horrible while another says they are pivotal; All the while they both are meaning something different but will ***** about it during pregame.

Funny you should mention these.

I'm now waiting for someone to come in and say that a "hit to the head" isn't an approved NFHS signal. :D

It isn't, but you can verbalize that action with another signal. :)

Peace

Or you can give a hit to the head.

You could and I would like the NF to add to the signals that are already there, but in college this is a signal. I gave a lot of preliminary signals in college games too. I do not see the incessant need to not use them. But to each his own I guess.

Peace

It must be . . . I saw it when a foul was reported to the table in a JV game just two days ago! And the foul before that was the frankenstein signal! Y'all are just behind the times!

I use the hit to the head at the spot.

I saw a one-armed Frankenstein at my kid's game this weekend.

You see a lot of goofy stuff watching your kid play. Entertaining or does it make you mad? ;p

2015-17 OFFICIALS MANUAL
4.4 PLAY IS STOPPED

4.4.2 Fouls

B. Point of the Foul: It is imperative that a definite procedure in officiating mechanics be used when a foul occurs. The following duties should be performed in the order listed by the ruling official:

1. Sound the whistle . . .while raising one hand, fist clenched, . . .
2. When player clarification is needed, . . . (optional bird-dog signal).
3. While holding the foul signal, . . .stop and verbally inform the player that he/she fouled by stating the jersey color and number.
4. Lower the foul signal and indicate the nature of the foul by giving a preliminary signal. (italics added)
5. through 8.

Discussions about proper mechanics, especially individual official mechanics, often seem to indicate that more experienced, and more highly ranked, esteemed officials, are not required to perform the specific mechanics noted. Often, the idea or concept is supported that great, experienced judgement is preferred above sound, and letter-of-the book mechanics. I do not understand that the two are mutually exclusive.