NBA 2-Man

[Freddy]

Anybody else check in with the Bulls at Pacers game tonight to see the crew doing a 2-person game? Interesting that the lead has done the "ball-side mechanic" several times since I've tuned in. The trail seems to be working very well at the top of the arc. Don't know what happened to the other official. Looks like they ditched the 4-person crew experiment and are considering going back to 2-man crews, eh?

[Freddy]

Scheduled were:
Marc Davis Brian Forte Scott Twardoski
Marc Davis appears to be out.

These two guys are making this fast paced game look easy. Outside official quite active and engaged.

[Raymond]

One of my high-school commissioners is an NBA official. They have a totally different take on two person officiating. We will not be using Federation mechanics this year that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

One of my high-school commissioners is an NBA official. They have a totally different take on two person officiating. We will not be using Federation mechanics this year that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I know who you're talking about!

Whether you call it Cadillac or some modification thereof, having used it in the HRBOA the past two seasons, I have to admit it's pretty darn good if done correctly and you have a crew that commits to hustling. Having just returned to NFHS 2-p mechanics in my new state, I must say I feel like I'm guessing more (which forces me to pass on many likely calls) and that my angles are awful.

3-p is still far superior. But, if you have to use 2-p, I'd argue that what the NBA does and what is done in Tidewater, Virginia, is much better. That said, it is probably harder for a new official to learn (NFHS 2-p mechanics are quite straightforward).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I know who you're talking about!
...if you have to use 2-p, I'd argue that what the NBA does and what is done in Tidewater, Virginia, is much better. That said, it is probably harder for a new official to learn...

Care to share how the two systems are different? Might be something we can use here locally. Thanx in advance.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Care to share how the two systems are different? Might be something we can use here locally. Thanx in advance.

The one being implemented in my association (I doubt I'll work any 2-man) involves a lot of ball-side officiating using the FTLE as the line of demarcation as to who should be ball side. Also, the Trail always comes up the left side of the court (sideline is to his/her left) and the Lead always goes down the right side (sideline is to his/her right).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The one being implemented in my association (I doubt I'll work any 2-man) involves a lot of ball-side officiating using the FTLE as the line of demarcation as to who should be ball side. Also, the Trail always comes up the left side of the court (sideline is to his/her left) and the Lead always goes down the right side (sideline is to his/her right).

I understand the ball-side. It's how I work 2 man now, although I probably don't move over quite that much.

I have no clue why they'd bother with the old Cadillac requirement. It makes no sense to me, have you noticed any benefit to this?

[packersowner]

I am not a NBA historian, but from what I have been told this is how the NBA use to ref a long time with 2 officials. I know of at least one state, through conversations with other officials at camps, that uses this concept in their 2 man officiated games.

Without having experience with it, it seems like the court coverage would be much better than the current NFHS mechanics, and specifically would help clear the path for post play. Plus the trail official has a good wide angle of both sides of the court. Although if you have two teams that turn the ball over and there is transition, you could see some potential issues as your trail transitions to the lead.

[Adam]

Going ball side as lead in two man is vital. It's the only way to get good post coverage. It may lead to a few issues, but it solves far more issues than it causes.

I just don't get the Cadillac thing. I don't see any benefit there.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The one being implemented in my association (I doubt I'll work any 2-man) involves a lot of ball-side officiating using the FTLE as the line of demarcation as to who should be ball side. Also, the Trail always comes up the left side of the court (sideline is to his/her left) and the Lead always goes down the right side (sideline is to his/her right).

Correct. So that when you're facing what you're officiating, you're always on the left side of the court, unless of course you are the L working ball side. This means that sometimes T has to administer a throw in from the right side and then swing back over. Not a big deal from my experience unless you're old and slow.

Originally Posted by Adam

Going ball side as lead in two man is vital. It's the only way to get good post coverage. It may lead to a few issues, but it solves far more issues than it causes.



I just don't get the Cadillac thing. I don't see any benefit there.

I agree that going ball side is not exclusive to Cadillac. In Cadillac, however, when L goes over, T moves above the top of the arc to cover the whole perimeter and the entire weak side. The view/angle of the weak side from up there is spectacular, discourages ball-watching, and makes it easier to trust your partner. The downside is that in a quick transition you'll be in the way and have to bolt the other way. Again, unless you're old and slow, the view that you get up there makes the occasional transition surprise a price worth paying. When L returns to home position, T just slides back left into a more traditional set.

Don't hate unless you've tried it! Watching it doesn't count; if you try it and then still hate it, we'll talk.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Adam]

I did Cadillac when I first started officiating back in the early 90s. My point is that there's nothing magical about being on the left side vs the right side. It's an antiquated mechanic that has no benefit, because you could just as easily be on the wrong side as the right side (50% odds).

If lead is active and going ball side, that's all that matters. Having trail always working with the players on his right doesn't do anything. All of the benefits of going ball side can be gained without the drawbacks of having to force a transitioning trail to cross the court.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Adam

I did Cadillac when I first started officiating back in the early 90s. My point is that there's nothing magical about being on the left side vs the right side. It's an antiquated mechanic that has no benefit, because you could just as easily be on the wrong side as the right side (50% odds).



If lead is active and going ball side, that's all that matters. Having trail always working with the players on his right doesn't do anything. All of the benefits of going ball side can be gained without the drawbacks of having to force a transitioning trail to cross the court.

That's a fair point, but then what you feel about modifying the positioning of the trail when lead goes across? Right now the NFHS manual shows how the trail's coverage area changes, but it doesn't tell the trail to move to get a better view of said area.

Incidentally, in the event the trail does need to bolt in transition, it helps to automatically know to go left, rather than having to think about it and risk getting out of sync with the new trail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

I understand the ball-side. It's how I work 2 man now, although I probably don't move over quite that much.

I have no clue why they'd bother with the old Cadillac requirement. It makes no sense to me, have you noticed any benefit to this?

You missed the part where I said I won't be working any of it.

Based on the walkthroughs I've seen, it will help with on-ball coverage significantly. It will definitely require a little more effort and hustle than most are used to giving.

I try to avoid 2-man in the off-season b/c I find myself getting into bad habits when I return to 3-man.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

I did Cadillac when I first started officiating back in the early 90s. My point is that there's nothing magical about being on the left side vs the right side. It's an antiquated mechanic that has no benefit, because you could just as easily be on the wrong side as the right side (50% odds).

If lead is active and going ball side, that's all that matters. Having trail always working with the players on his right doesn't do anything. All of the benefits of going ball side can be gained without the drawbacks of having to force a transitioning trail to cross the court.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

That's a fair point, but then what you feel about modifying the positioning of the trail when lead goes across? Right now the NFHS manual shows how the trail's coverage area changes, but it doesn't tell the trail to move to get a better view of said area.

Incidentally, in the event the trail does need to bolt in transition, it helps to automatically know to go left, rather than having to think about it and risk getting out of sync with the new trail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe that is only purpose of the Cadillac positioning, to give officials a consistent starting/fallback positioning without having to worry about being in sync with your partner.

[Matt S.]

If I had to guess why some think this makes sense, it's because there are more right-handed players, who (potentially) drive from the right side, so by being on the right side as lead, you avoid getting straight-lined on a quick drive.

Again, total guess here.