Preliminary Signaling
 

Was talking with my partner last night about preliminary signaling. We were observed last night and one of the points brought up was that we need to do more of it. The powers that be where I'm from have made preliminary signaling a big deal. I've gotten better at it but obviously still not 100%.

Anyway, he does some JUCO basketball, and he said that they want NO preliminary signals. Is that consistent with your experience at that level or higher? What's the reasoning behind it?

I ask merely out of curiosity.

What's their definition of preliminary signaling?

For example: B1 fouls A1 as A1 goes up for a layup.

They want stop clock signal (closed fist of course), foul signal (push, block, etc), and what happens next (two shots). Then go to table and report.

I almost never give a preliminary unless it's a block/charge play. I always designate the number of shots or the spot of the throw-in before reporting though.

Is that for high school or college?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

High School. SC is not anal about many things. Giving a preliminary is not one of them.

Never heard that and I work JUCO and NAIA that is all governed mechanically by the CCA that produces the book. Do they make it a requirement? Not really, but we are go give some preliminary signals for things like a PC foul, birddog (optional), FF1 and FF2, count the basket or no basket. Is it required to give a "push" or "hold?" No it is not, but never heard anyone tell me or other officials that you cannot give one. Often a preliminary helps sell the call or describe immediately what the player did at the spot. Maybe this guy heard something at a camp and equated it to what is required across the board, which may or may not be what others are saying. Having been to many camps and heard many clinicians all over the Midwest and parts of the south, never heard anyone say you are not to give one in JUCO level specifically. And I also tend to work with D1 guys who I see use preliminary signals rather often when working all lower level college games.

Peace

I wish observers cared more about positioning and playcalling. I assign for 20+ schools and I couldn't care less if officials give a prelim.

Officiating is about all those things. And depending on the situation, they are looking for the "why nots" not the "why."

Peace

What Happens Next ???
 

I love it when my partner gives a good preliminary signal. That way, I know if it's a shooting foul, or a non-shooting foul, which tells me to start getting the players ready for a free throw, and to identify a shooter; or to get the players ready for a throwin at a spot indicted by my partner.

When a partner fails to give a good preliminary signal, I'm forced to guess, or wait until he gets to the reporting area to find out what happens next.

Around here, the "hit and run" (not giving a good preliminary signal) is high discouraged, and frowned upon.

I give the "two" every time. But whether it's a hack, a push, a hold or whatever means absolutely nothing at the spot of the foul.

Getting plays right is job 1.

That's not what a preliminary signal is.

I do agree with that, but part of the job is to convince everyone that we got the play right. And a big part of the job is are signals and when we give those signals. If the observers (everyone in the gym) has no idea what we had, it does not matter how much we actually got the play right. I have had coaches complain more about plays where we got right, but they did not see our signal and it got them even more upset.

I had a coach yesterday want an explanation on every call I made and if he would have paid attention to my presentation at the table, he would have seen and heard what I had. I am very descriptive at the table what I called and use my voice.

Peace

At the table I signal. We're all talking about the spot of the foul....where giving a preliminary signal on a garden variety foul is just not needed.

I know the difference, my point is that it is part of the package. No one says anything that it trumps getting the play right. But when we blow our whistle it matters what else we did or we would not raise out hand and we would only go to the table and report the foul.

Peace

Of course. But so many people will address the signals and the rest of the garnish and not spend enough time on whether the call was correct and, if not, why.

Yes, because unless we have replay we can only address the call so many ways. I have been a clinician for years and I rarely ever address the call other than to ask the official, "What did you see?" When they give me the answer, I am looking for their explanation more than if they got the play right. I am looking for why they came to that conclusion. I might have been standing in a position that did not see the play as they did. I find nothing wrong with discussing the overall procedure when I can see what they signaled, but might not know if they actually got the call right. Video review IMO is the best way to start evaluating calls. And in most situation that is not practical at the time. Again, just an opinion.

Peace

Ironic issue around these parts is that the clinicians all make it a big point during training and camps but then you rarely see the veterans doing it when you go to watch them in games. I prefer the premium signal on calls that aren't just plainly obvious when I'm watching. When I'm calling, I try to do it all calls so I can make a habit of it. To me, it lends credibility to the call but I understand that some don't believe that way. I would say NFHS cares though, since it is part of the four bullet points to calling a foul.

Btw, Go Chiefs!!!!!!!!!!


I wish I had a cool signature

Blocks/charges only is what NCAA-M wants.

I follow that for both college and HS.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Preliminary Signal ...
 

If I have to wait for my partner to get to the reporting area and report the foul to the table for me to find out whether it's a shooting foul, or a non-shooting foul, that's certainly a bad preliminary signal.

It's a reasonably big deal here in HS to give the preliminary signal at the spot of the foul.

In NCAAW, only if needed (which usually means block /charge).

Preliminary signal is showing the type of foul at the spot. Stating the number of free throws or the throw-in spot is part of ALL foul calling procedures.

I only do high school, but I've had multiple NCAA-M officials (one of whom has done Division I) tell me the "two shots" indicator at the spot isn't even necessary on "plays where it's obvious to everyone in the gym we'll be shooting."

I don't see how. If you do not tell anyone, it is possible that people might assume the wrong thing and be surprised when you are going to the line. Not everything you think is obvious to you is obvious to everyone.

Peace

Same here, except maybe the "reasonably" part. It's all about communication, and as Billy said, it helps your partner know what exactly you had.

Besides, without preliminary signals, we're denied THE MOMENT, when the home crowd is cheering your fist in the air, because they don't yet know the hand is about to go behind your neck.

I always will give the number of shots or the location of the in-bound. Advice to not give this really doesn't make any sense. Even if "every one in the gym" knows it is a shooting foul, your partner might not because he might be watching a competitive matchup in his area and might not have seen the foul.

I give a preliminary on all block / charge fouls, and will punch all team control and player control fouls so it is obvious when we are going the other way.

I'll give an occasional prelim signal at the spot for an off-ball foul, but other than that I don't give a preliminary signals.

Exactly!!!

Peace

Nobody said anything about not giving preliminary signals on *some* fouls, to include block/charge plays.

It's just the ones where the foul is a hit or hold or push or hand check....

Besides charge/block/team control calls, I don't give preliminary signals unless it's necessary.

Like... say A1 is trying for a layup, and B1 goes up with him. While both players are in the air B1 commits a foul due to his body going into A1... instead of for illegal contact with the hand(s)/arm(s). I will give a push signal to let the defender, and others, know right away it was not involving the hands, so as to avoid the coach or player saying something like "he/I blocked that shot cleanly".

Most of the time I have a fist in the air, and then I'll put fingers in the air for free throws, or point to the spot of the throw-in. That way, by the time I'm finished reporting, we're ready to get the game moving again.

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.

They are not mutually exclusive. However, lots of these things aren't strictly mandated everywhere. If they are where you live, great -- do what you need to do.

A few years ago I had gotten into the habit of not stopping the clock on many out of bounds calls. Went to a camp and it was the first thing said in the classroom -- you *will* do this. Did it all weekend and haven't stopped since.

But if I were to stand there and call out a color and a number and give a preliminary signal on every foul, I'd be the only one in my area doing it. See no reason to be that person, either.

I guess I do not see the big deal. If you give a signal is it really going to hinder what you do? Just like people that are so against the birddog at times. Is it really hurting you?

Every hand-check I call I give that signal. I would not do it any other way just like a block-charge call. You keep people in suspense unnecessarily. Not all falls are ones everyone agrees with or sees it your way. The signal IMO helps tell everyone what you just saw. And there is a difference between a hold and a slap on the arm.

Peace

I admire your ability to state the crux of the matter.
A few of the comments, in this thread, would intimate that the preliminary signals are nowhere mentioned in NFHS literature.

In my area, because I mentor and train so many officials, I feel obligated to teach them by the book. And, as each young official progresses, he/she comes to understand that the protocol is flexible, and fit to the standards accepted in the area. I prefer to give the new officials a sound, book-based foundation. Their rules knowledge, individual mechanics, and positioning concepts are elements that they can study, work on, and develop off and on the court. (I often tell them to "wear-out a mirror" by practicing their individual reporting mechanics.)

Last year, an evaluator, unfamiliar with me, sent to evaluate my partner's performance, in a M/JV game, that I took as a favor to the assignor, told me to change a particular mechanic I had used in the 1st half of a game he was observing. His instruction was totally incorrect. And I did exactly what he wanted, for the 2nd half of the game.

I keep telling him to make varsity so he gets better refs . . . as I've told him, he's getting the refs that are either new and learning on don't care and he needs to just roll with it, which he mostly does.

In fairness, while there are some odd calls, overall most of the games are reasonably called -- typically there is a relatively consistent foul bar. (Seems to be from the stands that the dribbling offenses, particularly carrying, are less consistent -- and sometimes the two refs are calling differently, which can be frustrating for the players.) And I probably notice more of the quirks than most from my general interest in officiating and lurking around here.

I think I get far less frustrated than many parents -- I'm more likely to accept that a call was right even when it goes against us, and I appreciate how difficult the job is, especially with a two man team. (On many obviously missed calls, I can tell that neither ref had a decent angle, and it is obvious to us in the stands because we did end up with a good angle on a particular play.)

So the short answer, is that I really don't get particularly mad. Perplexed and bemused, perhaps, but not worth getting mad, so long as (which has been the case the vast majority of the time) it is clear that the refs really are trying and working hard. (I do find myself getting mad when it is clearly a ref who is not working hard and appears to have accepted JV hoops as merely a way to get a check this afternoon . . . )

I use my voice in such situations. "Hit him in the head", "Grabbed his arm", "Pushed before the travel", etc.

I tell new officials to demonstrate that they know how do everything by the book. As they move up they will learn when and where they can deviate. Often times it is a supervisor or experienced evaluator who will advise a talented official that they don't need to do this-or-that because it makes them look like a newby.

Same here. "Hit before the block" or "Two hands first."

Peace

I'm with you guys on the verbalizing part. Can be tough in a crowded gym for a coach on the opposite side of the court to hear though in some cases and I have definitely seen some guys get push back from coaches when reporting a hit to the head with the NFHS approved hit mechanic. I really wish the NFHS would expand the usable mechanics to let us more accurately portray what happened on a play.

I just do it anyway.

Oops, did I just type that out loud? [emoji6]

Ok, so I may not get a state tournament assignment this year. But in the other 99% of games I do, many of which are really good 6A-ish games that are more competitive than most state tournament games, I think the coaches appreciate my advanced signaling vocabulary. Communication is key.

The NFHS basketball rules committee continues to inexplicably stymie the very kinds of communication they portend to encourage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

Fitness, Approachability, Rule Knowledge, and above all "Call Accuracy". If you are getting these right you are probably doing the little things as well.