Things the Mechanics Manual Doesn't Tell You

[ilyazhito]

I was taught by the book in that regard. I'm guessing that''s the standard way that IAABO cadets are taught. To this day, I stop in the reporting area, no matter whether I work IAABO games or not. Real-life, there is no reason other than personal preference for walking or stopping?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Real-life, there is no reason other than personal preference for walking or stopping?

You are absolutely wrong.

Real life is doing what is expected of you to be successful in your local association.

That's real life.

If those who evaluate you expect you to go to the reporting area and stop, then you go to the reporting area and stop. If your assigner expects you to go to the reporting area and stop, then you go to the reporting area and stop. If you were trained to go to the reporting area and stop, then you go to the reporting area and stop. If you are trained at meetings and clinics to go to the reporting area and stop, then you go to the reporting area and stop.

If you're expected to do otherwise, then you do otherwise.

Why? Reasons? Sure, someone can tell you a nice, feel good, bedtime story that there's less chance of an error in reporting fouls if you go all the way to the reporting area and stop. Maybe, once upon a time, a sixth grade student scorekeeper in a middle school game, or an assistant football coach scorekeeper in a junior varsity game, or a retired biology teacher scorekeeper in a varsity game, made an error and a star player erroneously fouled out, thus losing the state championship, said player losing his chance at a college scholarship, possibly due to some sloppy reporting by an official, but regardless, the bottom line is one does what one is expected to do to be successful.

The reason why is unimportant, and possibly irrelevant, meeting expectations and becoming a successful official in your local area is important, of utmost importance.

In basketball officiating, that's real life.

Take the advice of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, the great nineteenth century basketball official, "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die".

https://youtu.be/mEtcHdDyEvo

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I was taught by the book in that regard. I'm guessing that''s the standard way that IAABO cadets are taught. To this day, I stop in the reporting area, no matter whether I work IAABO games or not. Real-life, there is no reason other than personal preference for walking or stopping?

I think this is the part you seem to not get. Mechanics are often personal preferences. Someone suggests this should be done and they put it in a book to tell everyone they should do it that way. It does not mean there is not another way or a variation is a tragic event. Actually "walking and talking" can be good to speed up the process and get to the next situation quicker. But we have a reporting area and often people will not get there when they do not stop or try to report a basic foul. That is my experience, but not what you see asked for.

You are going to find many mechanics that have someone suggesting it should be done this specific way and others who will do something else thinking that way is more efficient. And many of those situations will never have an evaluator saying a word, not a single word either way. If I am acting as a clinician and I am talking to you about how you report fouls in that much detail, I am probably not finding much about your officiating to discuss. It does not mean I will not mention the mechanics you use, but it will not be an all-day focus unless I am clearly confused by your reporting process.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are going to find many mechanics that have someone suggesting it should be done this specific way ...

It depends on who that "someone" is? If that "someone" is an evaluator (or maybe an assigner) who will have a major impact on one's "movement up the ladder of success" in that local organization, then one should take it as more than a simple suggestion. Same thing if that "someone" is a local trainer (clinician) who is educating everyone in that local organization, expecting them all to do it that one, consistent, way (the same one, consistent way that the evaluators (assigner) will be observing and basing their evaluations on).

On my local board, mechanics are only a small part of one's evaluation by those who can have an impact one's assignments (number and level of games). Things like play calling, game management, and court coverage are much more important, but mechanics are still part of the equation, and they're usually the easiest forms of advice to follow. Some new officials may have difficulty calling a block/charge, or keeping coaches under control, but they can certainly stand where they have been taught to stand during a time out (which may include moving one's position to discuss a situation with one's partner, or walking over to the table to double check something, some flexibility can be a good thing).

On the other hand, if the trainers (clinicians), evaluators, and the assigner are not on the same page regarding mechanics, and the evaluation, and importance, of such, then things can become problematic. I don't work for such a disjointed, inconsistent, local organization (but I'm sure that they might exist somewhere).

Again, the usual caveat, "When in Rome ...". Some organizations may be a lot more flexible when it comes to mechanics, and the evaluation, and importance, of such, than others. That doesn't necessarily mean that one way is good, and one way is bad, they're just different.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... unless I am clearly confused by your reporting process.

Good point. While some of us may have our own opinions, based on our own local customs, about good mechanics, and the evaluation, and importance, of such, we can all agree on what bad mechanics are.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think this is the part you seem to not get. Mechanics are often personal preferences. Someone suggests this should be done and they put it in a book to tell everyone they should do it that way. It does not mean there is not another way or a variation is a tragic event. Actually "walking and talking" can be good to speed up the process and get to the next situation quicker. But we have a reporting area and often people will not get there when they do not stop or try to report a basic foul. That is my experience, but not what you see asked for.

You are going to find many mechanics that have someone suggesting it should be done this specific way and others who will do something else thinking that way is more efficient. And many of those situations will never have an evaluator saying a word, not a single word either way. If I am acting as a clinician and I am talking to you about how you report fouls in that much detail, I am probably not finding much about your officiating to discuss. It does not mean I will not mention the mechanics you use, but it will not be an all-day focus unless I am clearly confused by your reporting process.

Peace

We strongly emphasize stopping to report here at the HS level. The purpose is twofold. First, you have a very large variety of table crews with widely varying levels of attentiveness and ability. Getting close enough (not too close) and stopping before reporting improves the communication from official to table. Second, many officials race through the whole thing. Making them come to a stop slows them down and, again, it improves the communication. And it will get mentioned on evaluations. Communication is a big part of what we do and not doing it clearly only causes trouble. However, at some level, when you get quality table crews and quality officials, the complications of walking and talking are not really a big deal anymore.

[ilyazhito]

This is a thing that I notice as an official that concerns me: bad communication. It may be surprising that I am the one saying this, because I have Asperger Syndrome, a developmental disability that affects communication, but I have been confused whenever I see bad communication among officials and between officials and auxiliary personnel (no signals about last second shots (1 minute, my responsibility), fast reporting without being in the reporting area (often occurs when HS officials try to walk and talk), not confirming communication signals, putting the ball in play with substitutes at the table, not confirming count/game situation ,etc.). This is especially when it happens on crews where I work, because I might not know whether the other officials understood me when they do not respond. Bad communication often happens together with bad mechanics (not stopping the clock when required, not sweeping the floor, unapproved signals) and bad positioning. These three things result in officials making incorrect rulings.

Mechanics like pointing at the shot clock or 1 finger in the air might look ridiculous, but they exist to promote awareness of the game situation (10 seconds on the shot clock and under 1 minute on the game clock respectively). Being aware allows officials to be in good position, such as the Lead knowing what is happening and rotating in a rotation situation, and his partners picking him up. Stopping the clock is both a mechanic required by rule and an awareness mechanic, to ensure that officials and the game clock operator know that the game clock should stop (or not start). This is why I might be willing to compromise on HS vs college foul signals, but not on communication or on stopping the clock. Ifor you are working with me, and you want to use specific communication signals that are not in the (HS/college) mechanics book, or use these signals in a way other than what is written, let me know, so that I can adjust.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is a thing that I notice as an official that concerns me: bad communication ...

Stop it. Just stop it. Please.

I know that it can be frustrating working with less capable partners, or observing less capable officials from your local association, but it's part of the job. We all have to do it at one time or another.

Don't worry about what others do wrong. Unless you're a trainer, clinician, evaluator, or assigner, these "bad" mechanics are out of your control.

If you know what's right, and what's expected of you, do those things. That is under your control.

If you want to nitpick yourself (like I do after every game) that's fine, but don't nitpick your partners, or others from your local association

If you want to offer others some constructive criticism (note I said some), face to face, to help them improve, that's fine, but don't nitpick them here on the Forum, or anywhere else for that matter. It's not constructive.

Everybody has to work with "bad" partners, it's part of the job. Work harder, overcompensate, be more vigilante, etc. Maybe these "bad" mechanic partners make up for it by being great officials in other aspects of the game, play calling, court coverage, game management, etc. Or maybe they're just great guys that people like being around, good sense of humor, caring, good story tellers, interested in their partner's lives, all around nice guys, etc.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. (Reinhold Niebuhr, 1892-1971)

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

This is a thing that I notice as an official that concerns me: bad communication...

You shouldn't need to see one finger in the air to know that the game clock is under 1:00 and you shouldn't need to see the OTO indicating that he has the last-second shot to know that it's true. When you get to the varsity level, your partners will look at you like you're crazy if you act like you can't function without these visible signals. And based on your posts, you clearly psych yourself out over petty things that you have no control over. You keep talking about the G-league: have you noticed that NBA officials never hold one finger in the air at the end of a period? That's one of the many things you're going to have to get over if you want to advance.

Also, hate to break it to you but clock operators are not looking for our hand to stop the clock or looking for a chop to start it. They are listening for the whistle and watching for the ball to be touched. So, while it's all well and good to use these mechanics and they serve their purpose, let's stop pretending like they are more important than they are.

Also, I assume you are, for all intents and purposes, a sub-varsity official. You are going to have subpar partners who are poor communicators. And it will still be true when you get to the higher levels. The officiating Utopia that you desire is not going to happen, so you might as well stop worrying about it.

Again, as you move up, your play-calling and game management will be exponentially more important than the nitty-gritty of your mechanics. You don't seem to understand this as almost all of your posts have to do with opining about officials who don't follow their mechanics manuals to a T, rather than specific plays or situations to break down. Until you start putting more thought into the more important aspects of your game, you can kiss your dream of getting to college/G-league goodbye.

[ilyazhito]

Good communicators usually equal good officials, so how do higher level officials communicate, if not in the ways described in the manual? I've seen videos of varsity crews both using and not using the 1 minute and other communication signals, so it's not as if higher level crews toss the manual in the trash all the time.
That said, what do you do that differs from the book, and what is your thought process in doing so?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Good communicators usually equal good officials, so how do higher level officials communicate, if not in the ways described in the manual? I've seen videos of varsity crews both using and not using the 1 minute and other communication signals, so it's not as if higher level crews toss the manual in the trash all the time.
That said, what do you do that differs from the book, and what is your thought process in doing so?

You said it, not me. No one ever suggested that the best officials ignore the manual.

I walk and talk to the table. On fouls going the other way, I often just step out to where the scorer can see me rather than going all the way to the reporting area. I seldom give a prelim unless it’s a block/charge play. I punch on player control fouls at the spot and give the weak “hand behind the head” to the table. Why? Because these are methods that work best for me and that I prefer to use. And I work in a state where very few officials (at least in my area) are gung-ho about everything needing to be followed from the NFHS Manual down to the fine print. Some states are not like that and if you want to advance in the postseason, they want everything done exactly the way it says in the manual. If I move to a state like that I will adjust accordingly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Good communicators usually equal good officials, so how do higher level officials communicate, if not in the ways described in the manual?

I agree with the statement in bold. But that does not mean this mechanic is considered good communication.

I do not communicate the time until about 30 seconds on the clock. There are multiple possible possessions with a minute to go. Usually around 30 seconds, teams start to settle for that last shot much more. A minute they might be trying to score quickly depending on the score and opportunity. You could have a few turnovers. It is best IMO to wait until what would be a shot clock time to signal to partners. You should be aware of the time anyway.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I've seen videos of varsity crews both using and not using the 1 minute and other communication signals, so it's not as if higher level crews toss the manual in the trash all the time.

You are missing the point as you usually do in these situations. Yes, I have seen official do that and I have seen officials (many that I work with) never give the signal that early. Actually many guys I work college with refuse to signal that early because as I said, so many possessions can happen at that time. Then again in Illinois, we do not use the manual that way.

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

That said, what do you do that differs from the book, and what is your thought process in doing so?

I officiate to what works, half the time those things are not about what is in the book. One of these days you might realize that fact. The book is a guide for most things. It is not a document that does not have variations or even different philosophies of things people do on the court.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

... you clearly psych yourself out over petty things that you have no control over ... You are going to have subpar partners who are poor communicators ... The officiating Utopia that you desire is not going to happen, so you might as well stop worrying about it ... almost all of your posts have to do with opining about officials who don't follow their mechanics manuals to a T, rather than specific plays or situations to break down.

Agree. Well worded.



Where is this Utopia that you speak of? Are they IAABO? Do they need any officials?

Even though everybody is still playing nice nice, with no name calling, etc., isn't it time for the moderators to close this thread so that ilyazhito can start new threads with actual specific plays to discuss?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

Mechanics like pointing at the shot clock or 1 finger in the air might look ridiculous, but they exist to promote awareness of the game situation (10 seconds on the shot clock and under 1 minute on the game clock respectively).

When you first came on this board, you had several posts about how you always looked at the clock on every change of possession and everytime the ball crossed a line, etc.

If you are doing that, you don't need the 1-minute signal to tell you how much time is left in the period.

[ilyazhito]

I might not need that personally, but it is the approved mechanic at the HS level. Plus, my partners need to know what I am doing, so it's helpful to give a little signal like that to them as a heads-up.

I spoke to a guy in my area who calls HS and NCAA ball, and he said that NCAA men's officials don't signal until the last possession where the shot clock is on (around 30 seconds). NCAA officials don't tap their chests because they know that OTO calls the last-second shot. He also added that J.D. Collins and coordinators have been cracking down on non-approved mechanics at the NCAA level, so I would not be as likely to work with officials who go off-script there as much as I might at the high school level. He also told me that HS officials who work shot clock games tend to follow the same practices as NCAA men's officials re: last second shots.