The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 03, 2019, 07:51am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,301
NCAA's "Opposite Table" Rationale

I'm hoping one of you can provide me with a link to or a document detailing the expressed rationale the NCAA stated for when they changed to have the reporting official to go opposite table. I'm not interested in opinions on the mechanic, only the wording with which they stated the need or desire for the change when they instituted it.
Any help? Thanx in advance.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 03, 2019, 09:27am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,301
On Oct.28, 2007, Nevada posted this:
It is true that the NCAA is returning to the mechanic of the calling official going opposite the table this coming season.
There were two reasons given for this.
1. The coaches were engaging the officials in too many conversations and it was detracting from the flow and speed of the game.
2. The calling official was mostly becoming the Trail and then the Lead on the subsequent trip, so this official was in the most probable location to make another call. (You have to accept that the Lead official makes most of the calls in the 3-person system for this argument to hold water. That assumption may or may not be true.) It was concluded or perceived that the Center official was not participating very much in the game while the other two officials were making the majority of the calls and simply swapping back and forth. There had to be an off-ball call by the Center to get him into the mix and then the new Center was left out for a while. Right or wrong that is the explanation I was given by the top D-1 guys.

What I'm looking for is whatever rationale they published in the CCA manual or communicated in an NCAA bulleting on the topic back in 2007.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 03, 2019, 11:59am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,878
It was stated at the time that they did not want officials having to feel they needed to talk to coaches after fouls. It was expressed in many ways when the change was made. I do not claim to have that evidence at this time but probably could eventually find it somewhere. I used to go to NCAA Meetings at those times as they had one in my backyard.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 03, 2019, 03:14pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,368
As stated, I remember the rationale being that they wanted to reduce interactions with coaches after fouls.

Never heard the one about the Trail & Lead constantly swapping, but I was once part of a HS game in which that actually happened for almost the entire 4th quarter.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 05, 2019, 11:29am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
On Oct.28, 2007, Nevada posted this:
It is true that the NCAA is returning to the mechanic of the calling official going opposite the table this coming season.
There were two reasons given for this.
1. The coaches were engaging the officials in too many conversations and it was detracting from the flow and speed of the game.
2. The calling official was mostly becoming the Trail and then the Lead on the subsequent trip, so this official was in the most probable location to make another call. (You have to accept that the Lead official makes most of the calls in the 3-person system for this argument to hold water. That assumption may or may not be true.) It was concluded or perceived that the Center official was not participating very much in the game while the other two officials were making the majority of the calls and simply swapping back and forth. There had to be an off-ball call by the Center to get him into the mix and then the new Center was left out for a while. Right or wrong that is the explanation I was given by the top D-1 guys.

What I'm looking for is whatever rationale they published in the CCA manual or communicated in an NCAA bulleting on the topic back in 2007.
The second reason given expresses something I've noticed happens more freqently than many might realize. Video review and tracking fouls more often than expected shows situations where the foul count is, for instance, 12 for one official, 11 for the other, and 5 for the third official. I've been that third official often enough to have sensed this. It's not that that third official was shy to call fouls or was missing fouls that were happening in his area, its just he spent a lot of time as C opposite table from where he had infrequent opportunities to rotate. This mechanic going opposite table after reporting solves that occasions yet real-to-life situation, spreading opportunities more evenly amongst the crew.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
www.myvirtualofficialsassociation.com
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 05, 2019, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
The second reason given expresses something I've noticed happens more freqently than many might realize. Video review and tracking fouls more often than expected shows situations where the foul count is, for instance, 12 for one official, 11 for the other, and 5 for the third official. I've been that third official often enough to have sensed this. It's not that that third official was shy to call fouls or was missing fouls that were happening in his area, its just he spent a lot of time as C opposite table from where he had infrequent opportunities to rotate. This mechanic going opposite table after reporting solves that occasions yet real-to-life situation, spreading opportunities more evenly amongst the crew.
I got that information from a D1 guy who has worked two FFs. I can tell you that the NCAA was definitely aware of this issue. I don’t know if they ever publicly stated such in a written memo though.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 05, 2019, 04:38pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post

On Oct.28, 2007, Nevada posted this:

It is true that the NCAA is returning to the mechanic of the calling official going opposite the table this coming season.
There were two reasons given for this.
1. The coaches were engaging the officials in too many conversations and it was detracting from the flow and speed of the game.
2. The calling official was mostly becoming the Trail and then the Lead on the subsequent trip, so this official was in the most probable location to make another call. (You have to accept that the Lead official makes most of the calls in the 3-person system for this argument to hold water. That assumption may or may not be true.) It was concluded or perceived that the Center official was not participating very much in the game while the other two officials were making the majority of the calls and simply swapping back and forth. There had to be an off-ball call by the Center to get him into the mix and then the new Center was left out for a while. Right or wrong that is the explanation I was given by the top D-1 guys.

What I'm looking for is whatever rationale they published in the CCA manual or communicated in an NCAA bulletin on the topic back in 2007.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post

I got that information from a D1 guy who has worked two FFs. I can tell you that the NCAA was definitely aware of this issue. I don’t know if they ever publicly stated such in a written memo though.


Go to the 10th comment in the following thread regarding a study done by the SEC:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...lege-game.html

MTD, Sr.


P.S. In the pre-rotation days of Three-Person Crews, whoever called a Foul would go Opposite the Table and become the new C.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio

Last edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.; Sat Oct 05, 2019 at 04:40pm. Reason: Added Post Script.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 05, 2019, 04:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 657
There was a time when there were no rotations in 3-person mechanics? I'm surprised, because ballside mechanics in 2-person crews have been a feature for a very long time, and 3-person also adopted ballside mechanics.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 06, 2019, 08:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
There was a time when there were no rotations in 3-person mechanics? I'm surprised, because ballside mechanics in 2-person crews have been a feature for a very long time, and 3-person also adopted ballside mechanics.
Who said that?

The issue is true (given the assumption that L and T make more foul calls than C) whether there are rotations or not -- it would be worse, I think, if there were no rotations.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 06, 2019, 05:11pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
There was a time when there were no rotations in 3-person mechanics? I'm surprised, because ballside mechanics in 2-person crews have been a feature for a very long time, and 3-person also adopted ballside mechanics.
Was that in the 80s? I do not remember that time at least when I started officiating.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Opposite Table" Text Freddy Basketball 23 Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:07pm
2016 NCAA Rule Change: OBS - "About to Receive" vs. "In the act of Catching" teebob21 Softball 15 Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:16pm
NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology Duffman Basketball 17 Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? fiasco Basketball 46 Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am
3 man system, compare staying table side vs going opposite table after fouls) jritchie Basketball 27 Mon Sep 27, 2004 01:30pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1