Why Aren't You On TV?

[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