Rotation

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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."

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

[Altor]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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."

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



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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.

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

Maybe they felt that officials talked too much to coaches or get pulled into unnecessary conversations. Whatever the reasoning does it really matter in the end? Some decisions on mechanics are just based on who is making the decision, not some data-driven position. And if you want to avoid officials always talking to coaches, that is a way to accomplish that very position.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

I do agree with you that change for change sake is not always good. But there is some reasoning that other levels do not go table side on fouls. It works fine at the NCAA Men's level.

Peace

[Paintguru]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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!

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

[Stat-Man]

Originally Posted by Paintguru

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!

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

I attended a pre-season scrimmage before Thanksgiving and chose to do the 3-person mechanics. There were some growing pains for everyone involved with the new opposite-table mechanic, but clinicians were patient and understood it's going to take some getting used to. Also, the 3-person clinicians had an instructional session after the last scrimmage to help show us how the various switches should work in a 3-person crew.

Between that, other announced changes (time out positions), and some apparently-unannounced signal changes in the new MHSAA basketball officials manual (new signals for arm-bar fouls and the end of a period/quarter), it's going to be an interesting season where we see who's paid attention to these changes.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

In the handful of varsity games I've officiated, I've had extended times as the center opposite where I haven't had a call whereas the lead might make a number of calls and simply switch with the trail each time -- leaving me at the center for extended periods of time barring a bump-and-run or rotation.

The idea of sending the calling official opposite in 3-person crews gives the old center opposite more opportunity to be on the strong side and have a more active role in the game. The fact that it also means less protracted conversations with coaches after calling a foul is a secondary effect.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Stat-Man

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

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.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

Those that were not good communicators got into a majority?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

Because coaches try to talk about the dumbest stuff when he has an official in front of him or her. And no matter what you say really is going to change anything. Yes, there is a movement by some to be better communicators. But there is also a movement to not tolerate BS from coaches either. And nothing about being tableside makes you better as a communicator. It just makes it easier to complain to. I can be a good communicator on a play I did not call as well. It is not about where you are, it is about what you say when you are addressed.

Peace