A Center or Trail, when working on a match-up, can <u>move and turn</u> to get a proper angle to see the space between the players. By drawing a line between the players, and setting the official's shoulders parallel with that line, the official may look staight ahead at the space (perpendicular to both lines) and be squared up on the match-up, regardless of the angle of the matchup with respect to the endline or any other line.
Action on the floor is rather <u>dynamic</u> while the end lines seem to stay in one place.

<i>"...have not mentioned the importance of endline positioning (depth and width), closing down or the Trail's adjustments."- tomegun </i>

I recognize the importance of these things and probably didn't mention them, polished shoes, water at 1/2-time or medical alert tags either.


<I>"Squaring up has been the main issue and since every play is different inconsistent officiating cannot occur when communication is based on getting to a play across the paint to square up on it."</I> - tomegun

I believe the issue was body language and how to tell if your partner is on ball. But, as I have said, I 've kicked 'em before.

mick

Clever, very clever but you did not address the question. The empire state building doesn't have anything to do with this either but the things I mention most definately have something to do with working as the L on the endline.
What you are referring to when you described getting angles on plays is just that, getting angles. You can say you don't want to get straight-lined or you want to see daylight between the players but "squaring up to the play?" I haven't heard that before. You still haven't mentioned the possibility of little Johnny getting mugged in the paint while you are trying to get across the lane and form a equalateral triangle with two players (I can be clever too). Who is going to watch that since you have to get over there, "square up", you partner recognizes this, and then your partner watches weakside. People, this happens pure and simple. We can try to exchange witty comments all day long but this happens. If this situation isn't part of the pregame it can be trouble. If the Lead crosses over and focuses on a area that has just become their primary there will be four eyes on the ball. Do you think squaring up will solve this?

Yes.
Exactly.
Yer gettin' close now.
mick

No my friend you need to get close. 4 eyes on two players isn't good and there is still no such thing as squaring up on a play. At least not at any of the camps I went to on the West coast or East coast. Once again you disregarded everything else I said and picked out one sentence without addressing anything else. The other things SHOULD be of some concern to you, to us!

What exactly are you geting at? Is your basic concern that Mick used the term "square up"? Are you saying he's wrong, that squaring up is never a good technique? I don't know about you but I find it is very useful in some 2 man situations. Or maybe Mick's left out other things that might be important? Howzabout you fill us in?

(BTW, no one really cares what camp you or I attended. Even though we all sometimes disagree it is assumed we all know what we're doing. OK? ;) )

The other things are certainly important. Do you need a bigger stick? http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/...m/sleeping.gif

Dan, a camp is where new mechanics begin to trickle down. One of the evaluators at a camp I've attended was mentioned on this board. I didn't say it in any bragging manner especially since I paid to go to these camps myself. What I was trying to get across is I have never heard the term squaring up when it comes to a play or players. I have heard the term squaring up when it comes to the Lead's position in relation to the end line. When it comes to plays/players I've heard terms like accept the play, open up to the play, get an angle on the play, don't get straight-lined, see daylight and others. I just want to make it clear to you that I would, by no means, try to big-time anyone by mentioning I've been to this camp or that camp. What is being avoided is the heart of the matter. If you can visualize moving across the paint and there is a play in your new primary. I say new because the Lead's primary changes once he/she is across the paint. The Trail is watching this play because it was in their primary before the lead came over. So, the Lead should have came over because of iminent post play or most of the players are on that side. Iminent post play - they are right in front of the Lead. What happens if the lead bypasses all of the players in between the old position to the play in the new trail which could be right inside the 3-point arc? Also, what happens if the lead watches all match ups on his/her way over and then squares up to the play? Vision has just been cut off! So, a response would be "but the lead moves out so they can still look into the paint." Exactly right. Movement on the endline by the lead is made to increase our field of vision. If we "squared up" on plays at the lead we wouldn't need to move, we could just move our bodies so we are "squared up." Why would you "square up" on a play at the lead and cut your field of vision off? The answer would be for me to move across while reffing in progressions across the paint. Once settled with a wide field of vision go to a matchup in "new" primary when there is a change in player control, meaning A1 passes to A2. This way if the Trail had the play from the start they can stay with it all the way like in 3-person. Once there is a change of player control the Trail can look weakside and the Lead can look in the "new" primary. Without squaring up on the play floor coverage is better because the field of vision is improved. This, or something like this, makes more sense to me.

Not only does lead need to do these things, he needs to let his partner know that he has done so -- usually by body language / positioning relative to the play. That's all "square-up" means.

(sarcastic dialect comment deleted)

I like the way the heart of the matter is avoided, square up and you cut your vision. Cut your vision and you say "I didn't see it" time and time again. You do need body language or something like that but "squaring up" isn't body language it is something that can be detrimental to the mechanics of the game. Sort of like saying "I will bail out so you know I'm trying to get down court." What about the officiatin you just left behind when you bail out or "square up?"

(additional sarcastic dialect deleted)

excellent discussion
 

I don't often contribute to this board, but usually find some time to check in on a reg. basis and find it very useful. So I thank each of you who have taken the time to comment and allow the rest of us additional learning opportunities.

IMO, this thread has been an excellent example of taking a subject (and in this instance, imo, a very important one) and examined it from almost every angle possible. Hopefully we have all gained additional info. that will allow us to perform our job more proficiently and professionally.

Bob's last comment, I think, was right on and an excellent clarification of the apparent disagreement.

Tom -- slow down a little. I've got the feeling that you are using the words "square up" to mean something different from what others are saying. If you could physically describe what you mean by "square up" it might help the dialog.

Re: excellent discussion
 

That doesn't surprise me!


Rainmaker, by "squaring up" I take it as moving your body so you are facing a play and your partner has no doubt that you have it.

Can someone please examine both sides and make some comments based on what would happen if someone "squared up?"


Wow, is all I can say.

I have to go ref.

Re: Re: excellent discussion
 

Why does that need to cut off vision? I don't understand what you are seeing in your head.

tomegun, you said:
"I like the way the heart of the matter is avoided, square up and you cut your vision. Cut your vision and you say "I didn't see it" time and time again. You do need body language or something like that but "squaring up" isn't body language it is something that can be detrimental to the mechanics of the game. Sort of like saying "I will bail out so you know I'm trying to get down court." What about the officiatin you just left behind when you bail out or "square up?""



My understanding of mick and bob's comments are what I have used to guide my usage of this coverage. That is: "squaring up" so that my partner knows what area or match-ups I now have covered, this allows him/her to adjust their coverage accordingly (and of course we have pre-gamed all this).

The fact that I communicate that with my body language by squaring up to the play or players does not automaticaly mean I have cut my field of vision. I can be squared up and still have depth or width to provide adequate field of vision.

"Squaring Up" as is being dicussed in this situation IS body language. Your indicating that "you do need body language or something like that..." seems to put you on the same page of needing to communicate to your partner.

The squaring up, like any technique/mechanic/positioning, can be used properly or improperly.

How do you propose to communicate to your partner: "I now have this area or match-up and now you can cover weakside etc."? That communication needs to happen and happen as quickly as possible, esp. in 2 man mech.

No more so than any other time an official is "on the ball" -- whether at T, C or L.