Mechanics Creep

Originally Posted by Rich

Weak mechanic for a weak foul?

Nah looks like a foul to me. Body bump affects dribbler SQBR. Prob not a foul in a higher level game with better players.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by deecee

Not even sure that's a block. Illegal hands or push.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Nah looks like a foul to me. Body bump affects dribbler SQBR. Prob not a foul in a higher level game with better players.

I agree this is often a foul since the dribbler was redirected as a result of the contact. However, it is one that some will pass on.

Block, push, doesn't really matter. It could be either. A lot of foul definitions overlap.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Nah looks like a foul to me. Body bump affects dribbler SQBR. Prob not a foul in a higher level game with better players.

It's a foul for me at all my levels.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's a foul for me at all my levels.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I wasn't saying it isn't a foul. Guess it sounds that way.

Doesn't even deserve a prelim. Whistle, turn and report.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's a foul for me at all my levels.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Foul to me as well. But I would not have used that signal.

Peace

[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!

[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 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".

[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.