Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1035638)

This was the announcement that went out in the form of a recent weekly preseason MHSAA Officials' Bulletin:

MECHANICS
One new approved mechanic that will be included in the new
MHSAA Officials’ Manual, scheduled to be made available in about
2 weeks, will have officials going “Opposite Table” again beginning
this season. Some will consider this a new mechanic, but actually
we’re only reverting to the protocol as it was before it was changed
in approximately 2005.
This change is primarily designed for the three-person system,
though it will, to a lesser extent, apply to the two-system also. The
reasons are two-fold: Balance in play-calling responsibilities on the
court and to reduce the number of extended conversations
between coaches and officials that disrupt flow and take away the
concentration of the official.
To assist officials learning this new mechanic and for those
whose role it is to teach this mechanic to other officials, here is a
link to a downloadable PDF document that explains and illustrates
the most common details of the mechanic for both systems: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1T2...55r67J_GCqwi8E

Rationale for that "Balance in play-calling responsibilities" had to do with this assessment: "The ruling official, most frequently the Lead, was too often simply becoming Trail and then Lead again on the subsequent trip back to the other end where he'd be the most likely official to make the next ruling there. The Lead was merely swapping back and forth and the Center official was, for an extended period of time during the flow of the game, subjected to an unnatural duration without the opportunity to make calls as were the other two."

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1035612)

But to be clear, a rotation is a live ball movement during play. A switch (what you are actually asking about) is a dead ball movement with no play going on. So we switch during foul reporting, not rotate.

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB (Post 1035643)

You would think that unless the crew just refuses to switch or the teams dont move the ball much, it would balance out either way you rotate on fouls.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1035638)

Rationale for that "Balance in play-calling responsibilities" had to do with this assessment: "The ruling official, most frequently the Lead, was too often simply becoming Trail and then Lead again on the subsequent trip back to the other end where he'd be the most likely official to make the next ruling there. The Lead was merely swapping back and forth and the Center official was, for an extended period of time during the flow of the game, subjected to an unnatural duration without the opportunity to make calls as were the other two."

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1035648)

While fascinating, I’d prefer if this notion were supported by empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Freddy (Post 1035650)

Now that you're alerted to the alleged issue, watch for it in the games you do this season. The empirical evidence you're seeking might just strike you as valid by your own experience.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1035654)

Your condescension is duly noted. Also, please look up the definition of empirical. You’ll find your post to be comically contradictory.

Experience is all well and good and useful. But it is also subject to bias. That’s why I’d prefer if mechanics decisions like this were rooted in observed statistics. I’m just not getting that vibe from the text of the MHSAA justification.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1035655)

Maybe they felt that officials talked too much to coaches or get pulled into unnecessary conversations...And if you want to avoid officials always talking to coaches, that is a way to accomplish that very position.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1035656)

Fair. But the MHSAA gave both reasons, not just that one. So I have to take them at their word that they had multiple reasons for making the change. If the coach communication factor was the primary reason, then just say so!

You’re certainly right about the “person in charge at the moment” effect. But that goes to my criticism that too many decisions like these are based on perception and opinion rather than objective analysis. It’s not good for the game when we keep changing things for change’s sake.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1035656)

Fair. But the MHSAA gave both reasons, not just that one. So I have to take them at their word that they had multiple reasons for making the change. If the coach communication factor was the primary reason, then just say so!

You’re certainly right about the “person in charge at the moment” effect. But that goes to my criticism that too many decisions like these are based on perception and opinion rather than objective analysis. It’s not good for the game when we keep changing things for change’s sake.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Paintguru (Post 1035667)

It's funny, I'm just starting to try and get some 3-person experience and hopefully move up to Varsity at some point (likely in the not-so-near future). I went to work some scrimmage games last Saturday and between trying to keep up with differences between 2 and 3-person PLUS adding the new opposite-table (sometimes but not on every call) rotation in, I looked (and felt) like a complete moron out there. I'm sure the trainer and assignor at that scrimmage were really itching to give me games after that display! :eek: :eek:

So I totally get your point about not changing things unless there is a clear reason to do so.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

While fascinating, I’d prefer if this notion were supported by empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Stat-Man (Post 1035778)

The fact that it also means less protracted conversations with coaches after calling a foul is a secondary effect.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1035779)

You know, for the last several years, one of the key talking points at clinics, camps, and meetings was, “We need to communicate better with coaches; be a good listener; he/she just wants to be heard; be personable, not distant; yada yada yada.”

I totally bought in. Taking those table side opportunities to be a better communicator has made me a better official.

So why now this movement toward going opposite? I don’t get it.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 1035779)

You know, for the last several years, one of the key talking points at clinics, camps, and meetings was, “We need to communicate better with coaches; be a good listener; he/she just wants to be heard; be personable, not distant; yada yada yada.”

I totally bought in. Taking those table side opportunities to be a better communicator has made me a better official.

So why now this movement toward going opposite? I don’t get it.