Mechanics Creep

[Kansas Ref]

Now that was quite a "dainty" demonstration of that signal. Something tells me that most officials [notwithstanding those on this Forum] would signal that action in a more 'manly'/ 'stronger' manner.

Apologies in advance for anyone who may view the use of the term "manly" as sexist or erstwhile politically-incorrect as certainly that was not my intention.

[zm1283]

FWIW, I saw Gerry Pollard give the "hands on hips" block signal at a D1 game today and didn't think it looked all that bad. I don't really like the signal but it's not as big of a deal to me as it is to others. My bigger gripe is our limited number of signals to use for fouls at the table.

Also, some states/associations require a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul. We have to do it and I don't have a problem with it except on shooting fouls. The "illegal use of hands" signal feels really awkward in that situation.

[BillyMac]

Just got the word today that IAABO has approved two of my signal change suggestions for the 2019-20 IAABO Mechanics Manual.

One is a slight change in the labeling of the five second closely guarded violation signal, and the other is a slight change in the labeling of the delayed lane violation signal.

I bet that you won't notice these insignificant (they're both academic, with no real world value) changes, but if you do, blame me.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just got the word today that IAABO has approved two of my signal change suggestions for the 2019-20 IAABO Mechanics Manual.

One is a slight change in the labeling of the five second closely guarded violation signal, and the other is a slight change in the labeling of the delayed lane violation signal.

I bet that you won't notice these insignificant (they're both academic, with no real world value) changes, but if you do, blame me.

*Congratulations! I'm glad they implemented your proposals; this proves that ''someone'' is listening and caring in the IABO leadership.
Maybe the NF will be as responsive. Have you also sent your proposal to them [NF]?
Again, congratulations!

[Kansas Ref]

Hay could you please describe / clarify how the accepted proposed changes look like? Any signal changes for the better--I'd like to read about.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... could you please describe ... how the accepted proposed changes look like? Any signal changes for the better, I'd like to read about.

Sorry to disappoint you, but as I stated, the changes are just to the labels on the signal chart and are very insignificant (they're both academic, with no world real value) editorial-type changes.

Again, these are IAABO changes, not NFHS changes.

1) Changed “Delayed Lane Violation” to “Delayed/Withheld Whistle” label to allow for delayed free throw violations that do not involve a lane violation, i.e. distraction, or three point arc violation. Rationale: Previously, IAABO didn't have a signal labeled on the chart for delayed violations such as distraction, or a three point arc violation. They only had a signal labeled on the chart for a delayed violation on a lane violation.

2) Changed “Five Second Closely Guarded” to “Five Second Closely Guarded And Five Second Throwin Violation” label. Rationale: Previously, IAABO didn't have a signal labeled on the chart for a five second throwin violation. It’s the same signal for a five second closely guarded violation, but it wasn't specifically labeled for five second throwin violations on the signal chart.

Again, sorry to disappoint, just something odd that I noticed and seemed to be easy to fix.

Are you totally underwhelmed? If not, you should be.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

... this proves that ''someone'' is listening and caring in the IAABO leadership. Maybe the NF will be as responsive. Have you also sent your proposal to them?

As an IAABO member, we only use IAABO mechanics and signals (I don't even have a NFHS Mechanics Manual and Signal Chart), so I "stayed in my lane".

Because of the IAABO hierarchy (certainly a two-edged sword), and because IAABO International often has representation on the NFHS Rules Committee, we have a pretty good system in place to offer rule proposals to the NFHS. Rule proposals go up the chain of command, first to our local interpreter, then to our state interpreter, then to the IAABO International Co-Coordinators of Interpreters, and if all goes well, to the NFHS Rules Committee.

A lot of documentation is required: the new rule, the old rule, citation numbers, a rationale, needed changes to other rules (penalties), and all casebook plays involved must be cited, and changed.

I've had three rule change proposals accepted by the NFHS: 3-3-E Defensive Match-Up, 2003-04; 4-22 Goaltending, 2015-16; and 3-5-3 Compression Shorts, 2016-17, probably because my local interpreter has a leadership role in IAABO International, thus fast tracking my proposals.

As my neighbor, Frank, often tells me, "It's always great to know a guy".

[ilyazhito]

North and South Dakota have approved additional signals from the men's and women's college mechanics manuals, such as the punch on player control fouls, hit to the head, 2 hands, and hit on the arm signals. Because North Dakota and Minnesota now use the restricted area arc, they have also adopted the point to arc signal. Maybe more states are approving additional signals on their own.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

North and South Dakota have approved additional signals from the men's and women's college mechanics manuals, such as the punch on player control fouls, hit to the head, 2 hands, and hit on the arm signals. Because North Dakota and Minnesota now use the restricted area arc, they have also adopted the point to arc signal. Maybe more states are approving additional signals on their own.

Mechanics are not a thing that the NF can regulate what states do. This is nothing new or even unique. My state adopted many differences because of what was observed and felt it needed to be changed in basketball and many other sports. Nothing new.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Mechanics are not a thing that the NF can regulate what states do.

JRutledge is correct, otherwise those states that use IAABO mechanics would lose representatives on the NFHS Rules Committees, and in regard to Connecticut, we haven't.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

North and South Dakota have approved additional signals from the men's and women's college mechanics manuals ...

This is a signal that I wanted added to the IAABO Mechanics Manual Signal Chart:



I was told that although some on the four person IAABO International Co-Coordinators of Interpreters liked the idea, it was ultimately not approved, mainly because it was not an approved NFHS signal, and they wanted NFHS and IAABO signals to be as similar as possible.

Old timers here in my little corner of Connecticut were taught, and have been using, this signal for decades, but the young'uns are not being taught the signal.

Coach: "Hey BillyMac, he was going for the ball".

BillyMac: "Didn't you see my signal coach? The intentional foul wasn't for no play on the ball, or for a jersey grab, or a push from behind, or a bear hug, or for contact away from the ball with a player clearly not involved with a play, or for contact with an inbounder. It was for excessive contact".

Coach: "Thanks for the explanation BillyMac. You're doing a great job officiating tonight. By the way, did anyone ever tell you that you look just like George Clooney?".

BillyMac: "Thanks coach. And yes, I'm told that all the time".

[bucky]

You rally don't need the second part. Your arms will come down by default anyway.

Given your officiating prowess, I am surprised that the coach used the word "tonight" in your example.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

You really don't need the second part. Your arms will come down by default anyway.

Not before one strikes a dabbing pose.

Originally Posted by bucky

Given your officiating prowess, I am surprised that the coach used the word "tonight" in your example.

I was having a good night for a change. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

North and South Dakota have approved additional signals from the men's and women's college mechanics manuals, such as the punch on player control fouls, hit to the head, 2 hands, and hit on the arm signals. Because North Dakota and Minnesota now use the restricted area arc, they have also adopted the point to arc signal. Maybe more states are approving additional signals on their own.

I'd be happy to see FED add more "approved" signals if for no other reason than to shut up the blowhards that whine about "unapproved" signals.

I do find it funny that people always talk about wanting the signals that college has. I don't think men's NCAA has many, if any, more "approved" signals than high school. I think people just don't lose as much sleep about it at that level.

At the end of the day, if states see it as a big enough problem, they will make a change on their own or just not care.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

... states ... will make a change on their own ...

This is another signal that I wanted added to the IAABO Mechanics Manual Signal Chart:



Again, I was told that although some on the four person IAABO International Co-Coordinators of Interpreters liked the idea, it was ultimately not approved, mainly because it was not an approved NFHS signal, and they wanted NFHS and IAABO signals to be as similar as possible.

We've been using this "Connecticut Only" (Connecticut is 100% IAABO) signal for almost thirty years, pointing to the floor for two point field goal attempt when shooter has a foot touching three point line. Sure we could just not give the three point attempt signal (as we do for attempts that aren't close to the three point line), but this extra signal seems helpful to scorekeepers, coaches, and fans.