Why Aren't You On TV?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The best officials I work with are guys that have college experience. Why? Because they will not be shy to call hand-checking and other freedom of movement fouls, be aware of the clock and often use common sense when applying rules. Not to say that there are high school only officials that are not very good, but many of them have only a perspective that is limited if they never attended a college camp or got outside of their comfort zone.

And what is so funny, all my career I see high school officials use signals that are not in the book. Heck, I can hardly find a single high school official that signals a team control foul properly, but we get upset if an official uses a signal that actually describes the foul that took place every now an then. We are funny sometimes.

Peace

And the college officials I work with are much more likely to handle business. Whereas some of my partners wouldn't warn or whack a coach if their lives depended on it.

If the NFHS would approve more signals that actually demonstrate what happened on a play, all the bitching and hypocrisy about using "unauthorized" signals would go away.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If the NFHS would approve more signals that actually demonstrate what happened on a play, all the bitching and hypocrisy about using "unauthorized" signals would go away.

Totally agree. And it is often this arrogance of "purity" that is the problem.

Peace

[Pantherdreams]

Its 2018 . . . who wants to be on TV. What you really want is streamable/capturable moment that can be easily imbedded shared and then turn into a meme. Does anyone even watch games on TV anymore? Who wants to do or watch anything that takes more than 5 minutes of my time anyway . . .

Seriously though.

I think JRut is bang on. Whether its games at different levels, regions, etc. We could talk officials who do college and hs or officials who do rural and urban. In those cases they just have a broader experience base to draw on and more opportunities to see, learn and develop a better sense of the game. Guys who do 1 level, 1 region, 1 style etc for most or their entire careers can still be good officials, but have to overcome that lack of exposure and experience to be.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

And the college officials I work with are much more likely to handle business. Whereas some of my partners wouldn't warn or whack a coach if their lives depended on it.

If the NFHS would approve more signals that actually demonstrate what happened on a play, all the bitching and hypocrisy about using "unauthorized" signals would go away.

In HS games, I signal whatever I need to communicate what happened. I will use a 'hit to the head" signal and "arm bar" signal when doing HS games. I definitely have a rep for handling business, especially with players.

I have found that folks who don't know HS rules aren't much better with college rules. You're either a rules guy, or you are not. One thing I never do is discuss college rules when doing HS pre-games; just causing confusion IMO. I don't like when partners bring up something from college games that have nothing do with HS games.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

In HS games, I signal whatever I need to communicate what happened. I will use a 'hit to the head" signal and "arm bar" signal when doing HS games. I definitely have a rep for handling business, especially with players.

I have found that folks who don't know HS rules aren't much better with college rules. You're either a rules guy, or you are not. One thing I do is never discuss college rules when doing HS pre-games. I don't like when partners bring up something from college games that have nothing do with HS games.

In some places officials who use those signals can't overcome the powers-that-be who only want "approved" signals.

Agree on the second point. Although just as a general point (not directed at you because I know you're a rules guy), it frustrates me when officials pass off not knowing the rules as "I'm not a rules guy." For me, it's code for "I'm too lazy or too arrogant to study the rules."

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by SC Official

In some places officials who use those signals can't overcome the powers-that-be who only want "approved" signals.

I can live with that. I was sitting in on a post-game "post mortem" once where another guy offered this criticism: "You signaled push, but it was a hold."

To me, that's an absurd focus on something relatively trivial, in the big scheme of things.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I can live with that. I was sitting in on a post-game "post mortem" once where another guy offered this criticism: "You signaled push, but it was a hold."

To me, that's an absurd focus on something relatively trivial, in the big scheme of things.

Giving the wrong signal, or a signal that does not fit/describe the actual type of foul that took place is not trivial.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by johnny d

giving the wrong signal, or a signal that does not fit/describe the actual type of foul that took place is not trivial.

ok.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I can live with that. I was sitting in on a post-game "post mortem" once where another guy offered this criticism: "You signaled push, but it was a hold."

To me, that's an absurd focus on something relatively trivial, in the big scheme of things.

That's a completely different issue than what I was referring to. Both "push" and "hold" are signals in NFHS. You shouldn't use one when what happened was actually the other. (And when you run into a smart coach and use the wrong signal, he/she will say "that's not what happened" and be right.)

I'm referring to officials being criticized for using a signal that shows exactly what happened on the play even though it's not one of the signals in the book (e.g. "hit to the head").

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by SC Official

That's a completely different issue than what I was referring to. Both "push" and "hold" are signals in NFHS. You shouldn't use one when what happened was actually the other. (And when you run into a smart coach and use the wrong signal, he/she will say "that's not what happened" and be right.)

I'm referring to officials being criticized for using a signal that shows exactly what happened on the play even though it's not one of the signals in the book (e.g. "hit to the head").

You are right, a different issue, but related. What I meant to suggest is an over-emphasis on signals, instead of the more important question: did the ref get the call right?

There are many more signals now than when I started. It's just my opinion, but I don't think officiating has necessarily been improved by that proliferation or by the mechanical application of mechanics. I also think that kind of micro-management makes the game harder to officiate. I've heard guys get dinged for signaling fouls with their fist facing the "wrong" way. That's ridiculous, in my book, as silly as dinging someone for signaling "hit on the head."

I acknowledge that I'm probably a minority--maybe a minority of one. I work hard, I hustle, I'm pretty good on the rules. If I use the wrong signal or mimic a foul with an unauthorized gesture, I still call a pretty good game.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I can live with that. I was sitting in on a post-game "post mortem" once where another guy offered this criticism: "You signaled push, but it was a hold."

To me, that's an absurd focus on something relatively trivial, in the big scheme of things.

I would say that's important. You need to accurately describe the infraction.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

In some places officials who use those signals can't overcome the powers-that-be who only want "approved" signals.

Yes, from the little I know about college signals, they can be better than high school signals in describing what really happened.

And if the only thing going on was to get the game officiated properly (as if the game were officiated in a bubble), it wouldn't really matter what mechanics and signals one used, as long as the officials are in good position to make the calls, that the calls are correct, and the calls are communicated correctly to players, partner, coaches, table, and fans.

The reason why my local IAABO board wants only high school mechanics and signals is that IAABO is primarily a basketball officiating educational organization. The education of new official doesn't end when they pass the rules and mechanics tests.

For learning purposes, we require subvarsity officials to stay and observe the varsity officials in the varsity game. The better, and quicker, they learn the proper mechanics and signals, the quicker they will move up in the ranks (of course, mechanics and signals aren't the end all, they also have to demonstrate other things, rules knowledge, game management, advantage/disadvantage, hustle, etc.). They are rated by observers, and one portion of the rating is on their mechanics ("Utilizes proper mechanics, up-to-date techniques and procedures as detailed in the IAABO Officials Manual." ). New officials observing a varsity game can become confused if an official, especially a highly rated official, uses college mechanics and signals (or even worse, college rules) in a high school game.

Learning is easier, and probably better, if these young'uns see consistent mechanics and signals, from one high school game to the next high school game, and from one high school official to the next high school official. It also helps a lot if what these young'uns see is the same as what's in the written IAABO mechanics manual (which is what they studied), as well as the same as what they've been taught in the mechanics classes. Consistency is the key, deviations from one accepted way (even if not the best way) to do things can be misleading, and confusing, to learners.

I know a lot about learning, I've got thirty-plus years of award winning middle school teaching under my belt.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Learning is easier, and probably better, if these young'uns see consistent mechanics and signals, from one high school game to the next high school game, and from one high school official to the next high school official. It also helps a lot if what these young'uns see is the same as what's in the written IAABO mechanics manual (which is what they studied), as well as the same as what they've been taught in the mechanics classes. Consistency is the key, deviations from one accepted way (even if not the best way) to do things can be misleading, and confusing, to learners.

People are not stupid. If they can show the actual foul that is better than showing them a "push" when they used their knee in the back. All these signals can be disputed. I use them mostly when I am officiating high school games, but I use my voice. But the problem is not everyone hears you speak (especially in loud gyms). And if it is so confusing, then why do college officials have little issues giving more signals? That is just lame excuse to stay in the stone ages. Things change and so does officiating. I have even heard IAABO complain that football uses the same signals. But football the signal has a specific penalty and the signal can be the difference between a 10-yard penalty and a 15-yard penalty enforced at the succedding spot. There are no such signal requirements other than a team control or player control foul that does not shoot FTs. And we never give the signal for what they did in a PC foul.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I have found that folks who don't know HS rules aren't much better with college rules. You're either a rules guy, or you are not. One thing I never do is discuss college rules when doing HS pre-games; just causing confusion IMO. I don't like when partners bring up something from college games that have nothing do with HS games.

I have had guys force a discussion of college rules because there are those that do not know the damn difference. Like when guys try to shoot the Ts out of order or go to POI on a single technical foul. So if you do not tell them, "That is a college rule" and "We are doing a high school rule" then you might have more of an argument. This happens a ton in football where the rules are vastly different, but in basketball, it is not as common.

Peace

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by Raymond

In HS games, I signal whatever I need to communicate what happened. I will use a 'hit to the head" signal and "arm bar" signal when doing HS games. I definitely have a rep for handling business, especially with players.

I have found that folks who don't know HS rules aren't much better with college rules. You're either a rules guy, or you are not. One thing I never do is discuss college rules when doing HS pre-games; just causing confusion IMO. I don't like when partners bring up something from college games that have nothing do with HS games.

I think this is correct but for me personally I try to use the approved signals first reporting and then use "unapproved signals" if I feel like that may help in any sense. The two cases that come to mind are as mentioned hit to the head and tripping. There is no mechanic to my knowledge to indicate the player was tripped so I generally signal block at the table and then say he was tripped and may signal or point to foot. It doesn't make sense that you are reporting the same foul when a player sticks his leg out and trips an opponent as when a defender slides into the offense or gives a hip bump. Probably not perfectly correct by the book but at least I can say that I reported the foul using approved signals, I just also used unapproved signals.

In terms of what foul is reported at the table it is most important to get the call right, but I think you lose credibility if you report something that clearly didn't happen. If you have a close block/charge then go report a hold or hit I think that the coach doesn't have as much faith in your call despite how correct it may be.

I would say when I started I did not consider myself a "rules guy" but this forum has helped tremendously. I would rate myself above the median referee in terms of rules knowledge now, and probably well below the median for referees on this forum.