1982 ACC Ttitle Game

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It almost seems like there was a "feel" of officiating much more than a science of what you actually did ...

I have come up that same realization based on forty years of officiating high school basketball, especially in regard to mechanics, and the teaching of such.

Forty years ago it was acceptable to just know the rules, understand the game, be in fairly good shape, and be a good communicator to become a successful basketball official.

Mechanics were often a side-note, often interpreted very artistically. Now mechanics are treated like a science.

Forty years ago one never spoke about secondary coverage areas, and secondary defenders. Now it's all the rage.

Many pregames were simply, "Don't screw up. Good eye contact".

The IAABO mechanics manual now has dozens and dozens of diagrams, to cover every possible situation.

Forty years ago the NFHS mechanics manual had just a few diagrams.

The modern emphasis on "scientific" mechanics (and robotic officials) is good for the sport (adds fairness and accuracy), but it takes away some of the fun of officiating.

Just spit-balling here, but maybe mechanics have become so difficult that maybe its had a slight impact on the shortage of officials, with many new officials leaving within their first three years.

Just sayin'.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have come up that same realization based on forty years of officiating high school basketball, especially in regard to mechanics, and the teaching of such.

Forty years ago it was acceptable to just know the rules, understand the game, be in fairly good shape, and be a good communicator to become a successful basketball official.

Mechanics were often a side-note, often interpreted very artistically. Now mechanics are treated like a science.

Forty years ago one never spoke about secondary coverage areas, and secondary defenders. Now it's all the rage.

Many pregames were simply, "Don't screw up. Good eye contact".

The IAABO mechanics manual now has dozens and dozens of diagrams, to cover every possible situation.

Forty years ago the NFHS mechanics manual had just a few diagrams.

The modern emphasis on "scientific" mechanics (and robotic officials) is good for the sport (adds fairness and accuracy), but it takes away some of the fun of officiating.

Just spit-balling here, but maybe mechanics have become so difficult that maybe its had a slight impact on the shortage of officials, with many new officials leaving within their first three years.

Just sayin'.

I am not so sure that officials are so robotic. I think officials have their own styles and some flair to what they do, there is just some more uniformity. I think there needs to be in many cases. It does not mean we have to look like robots, but it looks better IMO that officials are not jumping all over the place to make basic calls. It is clear to me that there was not emphasis on how you looked when I see officials jumping out of their shoes and even advocated on things that were easy. And I find it kind of funny how old-timers will say, "If no one knows you are there, you worked a good game" but they made themselves known on every call. At least if we call a lot in a game we are supposed to be relatively even in our demeanor.

I also think the scrutiny has hurt officiating and things like YouTube has not helped in many aspects. I saw a video the other day where someone was complaining about "The worst middle school call ever" on a play where the defender fouls a kid and the ball goes straight in the air and the creator of the video is acting like there is no way this could be a shooting foul, which looked exactly like a shooting foul other than the fact the ball went straight up in the air and the kid shooting was flailing. Granted this was 3 years ago, but do you think anyone remembers this play if it was not on YouTube? Do you think the kids involve remember? I cannot even tell you the last middle school game I did and where if I tried.

That was my take and I found the video very interesting based on how these two guys talked about what they did and their animation in telling that story. Very different today in how officiating is taught and even portrayed.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have come up that same realization based on forty years of officiating high school basketball, especially in regard to mechanics, and the teaching of such.

Forty years ago it was acceptable to just know the rules, understand the game, be in fairly good shape, and be a good communicator to become a successful basketball official.

Mechanics were often a side-note, often interpreted very artistically. Now mechanics are treated like a science.

Forty years ago one never spoke about secondary coverage areas, and secondary defenders. Now it's all the rage.

Many pregames were simply, "Don't screw up. Good eye contact".

The IAABO mechanics manual now has dozens and dozens of diagrams, to cover every possible situation.

Forty years ago the NFHS mechanics manual had just a few diagrams.

The modern emphasis on "scientific" mechanics (and robotic officials) is good for the sport (adds fairness and accuracy), but it takes away some of the fun of officiating.

Just spit-balling here, but maybe mechanics have become so difficult that maybe its had a slight impact on the shortage of officials, with many new officials leaving within their first three years.

Just sayin'.

I like the emphasis on mechanics. It's keeps my mind engaged into the game as to what I should be doing and how best to do it instead of just randomly standing on spots and waiting for something to happen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I like the emphasis on mechanics. It's keeps my mind engaged into the game as to what I should be doing and how best to do it instead of just randomly standing on spots and waiting for something to happen.

It's certainly good for the sport because it adds a level of coverage, fairness, and accuracy to the game that we often didn't see in high school games forty years ago (we didn't know what we didn't know).

I find myself talking to myself. "No competitive match-ups in my primary coverage area, so maybe I should expand my coverage into my secondary coverage area to possibly help out my partner if there's a screen for the ball handler he's watching in his primary coverage area".

I still miss some of the creative artistry of officiating.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I like the emphasis on mechanics. It's keeps my mind engaged into the game as to what I should be doing and how best to do it instead of just randomly standing on spots and waiting for something to happen.

I have never officiated in that era or at least not the one where we were winging it. If it was not for mechanics I would not have been such a student of the game.

Peace