Being sure of getting your offender and shooter
 

What mental and or physical method do you use to be sure that you get the correct player:

A) who committed the foul,

B) who was fouled - the shooter?

And how do you communicate that info to your partner or partners?

Thanks

I look to my partner and point to the shooter while saying the player's number.

"25 is the shooter."

A for the player that committed the foul I have no tricks. Lol, sorry

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

My routine:

Tweet
Fist in the air
Close-down on the play if necessary (as C or T, rarely if I'm the L)
"White 31, Hold. (make hold signal) 24 is the shooter"
Go to foul reporting area.

So Ended That Experiment ...
 

After my preliminary signal, "Blue. Twenty-one. Push.", I point to the shooter and state "Shooter". Years ago, I tried stating, and remembering, both numbers, but would often mix up the numbers on the way to the reporting area..

If I am the calling official, I might call out the shooter's number if it is clearly not obvious they are going to be shooting, like a rebounding foul.

If I am the non-calling official I know the foul that was called, I will point out the shooter for a longer time to identify to my other partner that is our shooter.

Peace

Thanks, guys. I'm doing a lot of games with newer officials, and I'm having a difficult time getting them to consistently get the numbers. I've been thinking that my method might be so personalized that it's hard for them to adopt. But, your comments are very much what I do and what I've been telling them.
Apparently, they just need to practice.

Tell them to slow down. Be patient before going to the table to report.

Maybe you just ask them who is the shooter? Then they might realize how important that is or get them the habit of knowing. You can also make this a pregame item and tell them, "Make sure we get the shooter's numbers, especially on non-shooting situations." But as anything, they have to slow down and process everything and realize the importance of this when you are not looking at the call they made.

Peace

Thanks, JRut. I like that phrase. I've been in the habit of saying, "You'll have some calls tonight, that I won't know what you've called until you give your mechanics. So let's be sure to use complete mechanics, because I'll be working off-ball to the extent that I won't know what you have until you tell me."
And then, when a partner doesn't give the shooter's number, I usually point to the shooter, and ask my partner if he/she is the shooter. I'll be more specific in our pre-game.
Thanks, again.

In the defense of the newer officials... it took me a few years to make this a consistent habit also.

Yeah not everyone has been refereeing for 5 decades...

At the spot, color, # fouler, signal for foul type. Just before I leave, color, # is the shooter.

I realize color of the shooter is redundant but helps me remember who the foul is on.

I know a guy who signals with his hands the number of the shooter along with a verbal before his spot report.

That's confusing to everyone but saying white 21 is the shooter before going to the table clarifies it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I'll take that as a compliment.:)

Double Whistles
 

Where I see this messed up the most (basically talking about myself...), is on plays with double whistles on drives to the basket or rebounding fouls where it is possible there were 2 offenders (or its just in the middle of many bodies).

It is usually because of good initial mechanics that it is missed. Both officials post and hold and make eye contact and because it is in the lane with several bodies the numbers escape the 2 officials.

I had this exact scenario in a tough conference game on Saturday night. Fortunately we are able to go to the monitor in our league to ensure we have the number correct, but it still looks silly and is sloppy so I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle this as well.

I've been working for 30 and there's no chance I'll still be working in 20. Take it how you want to take it. :)

[QUOTE=Remington;996242]Where I see this messed up the most (basically talking about myself...), is on plays with double whistles on drives to the basket or rebounding fouls where it is possible there were 2 offenders (or its just in the middle of many bodies).

It is usually because of good initial mechanics that it is missed. Both officials post and hold and make eye contact and because it is in the lane with several bodies the numbers escape the 2 officials.

This is primarily the cause of that problem. The NFHS Officials Manual recommends "generally, the official that has primary coverage at the time of the whistles should take controlof the ruling (call). The manual does not mention anything about "post, hold and make eye contact."

I'd rather deal with whatever problems arise from making eye contact than whatever problems arise from not making eye contact.

Such as?

A blarge.

No way jpg. Let's say Team A is pushing the ball in transition. You are the Lead, I am the Center. The dribbler goes hard to the basket in my PCA and there is a collision. I have a whistle. As an experienced official, you as the Lead may not even have a whistle but say you do. Again as an experienced official you withhold any signal. You can see without any eye-eye contact that I have the call. Also as an experienced official, I trust that you are withholding, freeing me to move right in and make the call without hesitation. I don't need to post, hold and make eye contact. But say we do have a "blarge." The post, hold, eye contact "mechanic" doesn't even come into play. We've already made our contradictory signals. Have you ever seen a double whistle where the two officials used post, hold, eye-eye contact and then simultaneously made opposite calls. I've seen and been involved with the P,H, EC "mechanic" and often it makes both officials look like they don't know what they have. Then, one or the other has to end up making the call and sometimes looking as if he is guessing at best. If you have played center field or have knowledge of baseball you know the center fielder is the "take charge" guy. There is no post, hold, eye contact with the other outfielder. I feel it is very similar in officiating. In most all double whistle situations, through experience both officials should know who the "take charge" guy should be. It shouldn't be, "Is it you?" "Is it me?" Although a "blarge" is a bit embarrassing, at least we have a rule and case play that we can go to. But if we use the P,H, EC "mechanic" and it results in both officials not having a clue who committed the foul, to me that is far more embarrassing. I'd rather suffer with the "blarge."

Another example -- the first play in the "shooting or not" videos posted today (or yesterday) by Arem. What if one official pointed to the endline for a throw-in while the other signaled "two shots?"

What if the play isn't clearly in one PCA (or I think it's clearly in mine, and you think it's clearly in yours)? What if it is, but I have a violation, while you have a foul on the back-side? What if it's in transition and the PCAs are more fluid?

This is the situation when I'm most likely to lose who the foul was on as well. I'm working on saying the number of the offender to myself in my head while making eye contact with partner.

Completely disagree.

I've never seen fist, hold, eye contact, result in 2 officials simultaneously making opposite calls.We pre-game double whistles to defer to whoever's primary it is if its the initial defender, defer to the L on a secondary defender in the paint. This works really well, especially with veteran crews and/or familiar partners. If you're working with less experienced partners, it usually works itself out that the "take charge" guy, as you would say, will go ahead and take the call when there is hesitancy.

I'd much rather deal with a moment of hesitancy than have to enforce a blarge, which IMO is administered poorly at the NCAAM and NFHS levels. Or to have officials give conflicting signals such as in Bob's reference to the shooting/non- shooting foul video thread.