NCAA's "Opposite Table" Rationale

[Freddy]

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.

[Freddy]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Raymond]

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[ilyazhito]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

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