Court Awareness ...
 

Agree. Sound your whistle.

But does it also mean knowing how the ball got tipped (possibly deflected) out of bounds, or seeing a ball handler step one quarter of one inch on the sideline forty-one (or maybe forty-six, or eighty-three, or ninety-three)) feet away (especially with players between the Lead and the ball handler)?

That sounds a little more like ball watching, maybe not exactly the same, but close.

No it doesn't mean knowing who tipped the ball. It means knowing the status of the ball as far as being in bounds or out of bounds, and properly stopping play with your whistle. And yes you should be responsible if somebody steps on your line. If you're looking up the line, you can see, even if it's 40 ft away.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Who's Call Is It ...
 

I think I now see Raymond's point. I believe that he's saying that Line Responsibility, as defined by NFHS and IAABO mechanics, only means a responsibility to stop the clock, and that the responsibility of actually making a directional call lies primarily with the primary coverage official.

Interesting take. Especially when one throws in asking for help, and offering help. Not sure if that's what the NFHS and IAABO actually mean, but it's still an interesting take worth discussing.

One thing that I always tell my partner in our pregame conference it that by working together, asking for help, and offering help, we should get almost every out of bounds call correct.

Training Committee ...
 

Have served twice on my local board's mechanic training committee and have never taught it any other way, we just teach, "This is your line responsibility, you sound your whistle, you make the call, ask for help it needed, offer help if needed as non-calling official".

But that doesn't mean that we're right. How do other trainers teach this concept?

One thing that I believe that we can all agree upon is that when the ball goes out of bounds, somebody, anybody; line responsibility, or primary coverage area, has to sound a whistle. While a cadence whistle and giving one's partner a chance to do the "right thing", is alright to use, don't wait too long. After that, teamwork should take over, and both officials should, hopefully, not end up pointing in two different directions.

Yet another reason we get paid the big bucks. Officiating high school basketball is tough, especially with only two officials; it takes skill, it takes study, it takes practice, it takes hard work, it takes teamwork. We should all be proud of the outstanding service we provide to student athletes.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vLU4pOLh8fc" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No conflict. PCA is inbounds coverage. Line coverage is not the same as PCA coverage. Line coverage is specifically spelled out and the two are not connected.

The lead isn't actually ball watching. They're only watching the line, not the defender and offensive player. When the L see the ball hit OOB or a player step OOB, the L makes a call. This is not unlike screen coverage.

If the ball is near the sideline and above the FT line, there's probably not much going on in the paint that needs close scrutiny -- the L can sneak a peek at the sideline to se if the offense steps on it.

If the ball is being passed around and there is action in the paint, the L still needs to be aware of the ball so the L can position himself (or herself) properly. The L's peripheral vision will let min / her blow the whistle if the ball gets thrown / tipped out of bounds and the L can ask for help.

I think you are making this way too complicated. Most plays are really not that close. You know when you the ball goes out of bounds. If you need some help as to the proper direction, ask for that help. But the lead has the line down the sideline and that is hardly an issue most of the time.

Peace

Violation ...
 

Agree. But out of bounds is, technically, a violation, usually covered by primary coverage areas.

Ball Watching Or Watching A Ball ???
 

I get it. I used the NFHS system for decades, liked it, and understand the difference between "ball watching" (in the language of officials) and watching the ball go out of bounds, or watching a ball handler step on a sideline.

Sneek A Peek ...
 

Excellent description of the way IAABO used to do it before they switched from NFHS to IAABO boundary responsibility mechanics. I did it for decades, liked it (warts and all), and hated to change.

Solution Looking For A Problem ...
 

Agree. IAABO took a close look at the "most of the time" part of JRutledge's statement, and decided to try to make it better, but only substituted one problem for a different problem, like one of those solutions looking for a problem, but with an equally bad, if not worse, solution.

I wasn't a big fan of the "new" IAABO system when it first came out, am still not a big fan, but it must have some degree of validity or well respected officiating organizations like IAABO (never rescinded its decision after decades) and NASO/Referee (see JRutledge's great post)) wouldn't be proponents.

The fact that the NFHS has stuck with its system for at least forty years tells us that it may be the best officials can do with only two guys on the court.

While I am trying to explain why IAABO changed, sometimes grasping at straws for a rationale, I hope that you guys realize that you're preaching to the choir.

I've been a loyal IAABO member for over forty years, and appreciate what they do regarding basketball official education, but I'm not blind to the fact that they do occasionally make mistakes, and this was one of their biggest mistakes ever. Yes, it was broken, but only slightly broken, and it didn't need fixing, especially when the fix may have made things worse.

While it may appear that I'm trying to defend IAABO from slings and arrows, I'm not, I'm merely trying to explain their rationale for the change. And after all, the NFHS does have some warts, just listen to our respected colleague JRutledge:

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.A...=0&w=300&h=300

IAABO Survey Says …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation based on IAABO mechanics, which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...vil1muCg%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This play is correctly ruled.

This is an incredibly challenging play for a Crew of 2. As the ball is passed from the midcourt area toward the sideline, the defensive player (in the white jersey) does deflect the ball. It appears it may have also touched the player in the black jersey before going out of bounds, which is what was ruled on the play.

Did this crew handle this play as outlined in the manual? The answer is No. This crew, for a moment, seems unsure who should make the ruling. They make eye contact, and the Trail signals direction while the Lead sounds the whistle and stops the clock. The Lead then mirrors the Trails direction signal—excellent teamwork on this difficult play.

By the IAABO manual, this is a ruling that the Trail official should cover. The Trail should sound the whistle and signal direction. (2020-21 IAABO manual p. 60) With the increase in motion offense and pressure defense, it is necessary for the Trail to cover the farther sideline more frequently. Farther sideline coverage by the Trail above the free-throw line extended reduces ball watching and provides better coverage while adhering to the PCA concept.

Since this play is in the Trail's PCA, the Trail is responsible for the ruling. This play coverage should be a topic in every pregame conference when working in a Crew of 2. If the Crew decides to deviate from the manual to have the Lead take the sideline and make this ruling, they should agree before the game. This will avoid the brief hesitation as seen by this crew.

How could the coverage of this play be improved? Starting with the Trail positioning, he should be a step or two more onto the court as the ball handler moves into the frontcourt. When the ball is passed to the sideline, the Trail could position adjust by "working the arc" toward the opposite sideline. This step or two may have provided a little better angle on the play, as his view from his original position may have been obstructed by the players in the midcourt area.

As the ball advances into the frontcourt, the Lead is in the closed-down "B" position. Lead officials should select their initial position based on the ball location as the ball crosses the division line. With the ball on the right side of the center circle, the Lead should "mirror the ball" and be a couple of steps wider toward the sideline. When the ball is passed to the sideline, the Lead should position adjust toward the sideline toward the "A" position. We hope this play helps your understanding of this important concept.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This play is correctly ruled 66%. This play is ruled incorrectly 34% (including me).

With A Little Help From My Friends (Joe Cocker, 1969) ...
 

I was mistaken. I watched it again. Ball deflects off Black #15's left hand at the last possible second.

The White Team coaching staff had the best look in the gym, and made the correct call, with correct signals, before the two officials, but the coaches forgot to give the stop the clock signal.

Consistency ...
 

No. It could add to a brief hesitation by the crew.

No where in the IAABO mechanics manual does it state that this "new" system is optional. All IAABO guys are supposed to use the new IAABO system, not the old NFHS system (check local listings).

This is stupid, and the cause of much confusion, hesitancy, and lack of consistency in IAABO games, possibly leading to some bad calls.

We did this at first, decades ago, with veterans preferring the "old" NFHS system, and newer officials (not being taught anything else) preferring the "new" IAABO system.

Systems changed from game to game, and partner to partner, and were decided in the locker room, minutes before game time, during the pregame conference.

Today, decades later, for the sake of consistency, we should all be using the same system (pick one system and stick to it).

No wonder the two officials in the video look hesitant and and confused. They are both trying to remember who their partner is, and what was decided in that night's pregame, something that may be the same, or different, than last night's partner and pregame.

I've never said this before.

Stupid IAABO.