Who justified it? You're painting all college officials with a broad brush based on one official. What does that one official have to do with me and other officials who do it properly?

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder concerning college officials.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Who really cares? Seriously.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

He is probably like a lot of people here. When they see a college official do something, they lump them all together. But if high school only official does something, they are still working the righteous level. It is kind of funny if you ask me when I see a lot of individuals at the high school level cannot get a rule right, no one says, "Those darn high school officials just ignore the rules."

Peace

He can talk to my patch. ;)

Peace

I more concerned about the stupid "not a closely guarded situation signal". I remember when the Men's and Women's CCA Manuals adopted it. I didn't use when I was a college official and I have never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) have used the signal. I had a college coach ask me why I wasn't using the "not a closely guarded situation signal" because he couldn't tell if I had a closely guarded situation. I told him that I didn't need to and he asked why. I told him that if I am visibly counting I have a closely guarded situation and if I am not visibly counting I do not have a closely guarded situation. He gave me a puzzled look and then a light bulb lit up in his head, and he said that that made sense.

MTD, Sr.

I think that signal is good when players are just standing still and not quite standing close enough. I have used this signal when coaches felt I should be counting. It gives information and more of our signals should give information.

Peace

Maybe the play in the OP is not something their supervisor wants called?

I will use the "not closely guarded" signal when in a situation where a coach or player may think there should be closely-guarded count, as a way to communicate that yes... I am paying attention.

I'll also use it if I have a count, and then the dribbler moves away from the defender or the defender backs off.

I don't see a problem with using it as a means to communicate. The book doesn't say we should talk players out of trouble, but we do it anyway.

When I first started officiating I was taught by a very good H.S. basketball official: You have nothing until you have something. If I don't have a closely guarded situation I have nothing until I have a closely guarded situation and then I have something.

MTD, Sr.

Yes but people question that we should have a count in many situations and certainly in the HS game where we do not have shot clock. Again, we cannot often tell everyone why we are doing something, this is an opportunity to do so during live ball.

Peace

I totally understand that way of thinking. However, I don't understand why that signal is a problem.

Obvious ...
 

Very obvious. NCAA Women, and NCAA Men, are the same. Six feet. Holding. Frontcourt.

Also, very obvious. NCAA Women. Three feet.

Both clear. Both obvious. Both easy to understand. Both can't be correct. One must be incorrect.

Nothing Until I Have Something ...
 

Connecticut IAABO (not international IAABO) went to a not closely guarded signal about ten years ago, then we switched back to not using the signal about five years ago.

"Who justified it?" I have no idea, but I'm sure there is some reasoning...
I think I asked a question: Do you think? Perhaps you're the one with the problem... You're taking the thread personal.
I watch college officials to learn, which is why I saw this.
The question is about the new rule perhaps making college officials lazy... I can't imagine another reason why this would get over looked to the tune of 12 seconds?
If it was a high school change and this happen - I'd say the same.

I don't know what you're talking about, and it sounds like you don't either...
Check the OP and watch the video and see what you think of the CG situation.
I love all basketball officials - even you man!