NBA goes 2-man
 

Eddie F. Rush, unfortunately, hurt his calf in the last few minutes of the 4th Q of the Rockets/Lakers game.
If anyone is interested in seeing the NBA guys do some 2-man for the last couple of minutes tune in.

James Capers and Mike Callahan were the two who finished the game.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Apr 24th, 2004 at 12:33 AM]

Some thoughts on the 2-man officiating in the last 2 minutes:
1. The TV announcers said that there is not an alternate official present until the conference finals. I wonder if the NBA will take a hard look at this policy now. It seems silly to me to not have an alternate in the building during the playoffs.
2. The officials pretty much worked just like they do in the 3-man system. The lead rotated to the strong side quickly, and quite often both of the officials were on the same side of the court. I know that this is an approved mechanic in NFHS, but most guys are either uncomfortable coming over or frown upon it. On a couple of possessions the Lead rotated more than once to cover a shot and then a weakside rebound. They ran, not walked over.
3. On one foul call near the division line the Trail official, who was tableside, called the foul and immediately turned his back to the players to report. Although, I'm sure this speed looks great and is not much of a problem in 3-man, I would have liked to see this official adjust his game due to the circumstance of only having one partner out there and hold his view of the players for a bit. I know that they don't do 2-man hardly at all and the ingrained habits are not going to be changed in the blink of an eye. It just could have been a problem, if someone had done something silly in that hotly contested game.

Au' contraire around here Nevadaref. We're still a two-person crew in Washington State and we're quite comfortable crossing to strong side and it is encouraged, not frowned upon when post play is anticipated.

Z

Just to be clear, I am all in favor of coming strong side in 2-man. I was quite pleased with how the NBA guys handled it. My experience with 2-man seems to differ greatly with yours. Kudos to your association for having the attitude you do on this mechanic. FWIW, I hear that NV is reverting to 2-man this coming season.

French!!! French!!! You used French on this board!!! How FEEBLE!!!

This in from Jay Leno:

"After what they say was an exhaustive investigation, the Defense Minister of France said today that Osama bin Laden is either still in hiding in Afghanistan, he may have escaped to Pakistan, or he may be dead. Hey, France, thanks a lot. We'll take it from here. Hard to believe they were invaded twice." —Jay Leno

And the French reply to Americans:

The explosion of shuttle Columbia didn't stop the Americans.

They recently decided to land a shuttle on the sun...When the French told them it was impossible because of the heat, they proudly replied that they would land at
night!

With the recent increase in terrorism the French government announced they have raised their security alert status from "hide" to "run". It is hoped there will be no need to raise the status to "surrender".

Dang, I missed the two-man game. That would have been interesting.

I did both 2 man and 3 man. From a purely physical workout standpoint, I preferrred 2 man. It was major boring getting cauhgt up in the C position.

Now for a bit of humor to keep things light....

Top 10 REASONS FOR BEING FRENCH

10. When speaking fast you can make yourself sound gay.
9. Experience the joy of winning the world cup for the first time.
8. You get to eat insect food like snails and frog's legs.
7. If there's a war you can surrender really early.
6. You don't have to read the subtitles on those late night films on TV.
5. You can test your own nuclear weapons in other people's countries.
4. You can be ugly and still become a famous film star.
3. Allow Germans to march up and down your most famous street humiliating your sense of national pride.
2. You don't have to bother with toilets, just **** in the street.
1. People think you're a great lover even when you're not.

There's another one on right now -- LA and Houston. Joe Crawford did something to his calf.

Most of the way thru the 3rd qtr & he's back.

This may sound cold - and I have nothing but admiration for the guy...but if you're old enough to worry that calf pain might be a life threatening blood clot then it might be time to think about hanging it up.

The NBA 3 is just an extension of the two person crew. The NBA has their refs learn the two person game extensively before they ref three. They are trained extensively, The NBA puts out a 2 person mechanics manual...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having two refs on the same side of the floor. If you know what you are doing it does not affect coverage. The object is to get the call right. If there are guys that frown upon going strong-side to ref, it's that they get too worried about getting across and covering their line... or they are too lazy.

Remember in terminology (at least with NBA) lead always has strong side rebound, because where ever lead is is the strong side..

I am not sure what you want trail to adjust to. If there is a problem, they may have missed a cheap shot, but the league does not miss them, and even if the "T" was not called, David Stern and company would still issue fines and suspensions. If you miss a T in a one shot Trail calls a foul, turns and reports to table. His partner watches the other players. The object in any game is to get the ball back into play. Too often NFHS referees take too much time putting the ball back into play (the mechanics encourage it many times) It goes like this

Blow the whistle
Tell the player what they did
Maybe birddog
Maybe a preliminary signal
Run way out to a reporting area
Stop
Signal
Go way back to where you call it

(if the foul is in backcourt you may have to long switch)

USBL uses 2 person. Very different than the NFHS 2 person system taught. I'm thinking the NBA teaches two man to their officials as a teaching tool... as well as for what happened today. I'd say good forsight by the officiating leadership in the NBA.

If you're bored at the C position, then you're not working hard enough.

For those of you familiar with FIBA 2-person mechanics, the NBA 2-man is very similar.

Speaking of taking your eyes off players too soon, Ron Garretson took his off Paul Pierce and Ron Artest while retrieving the OOB ball and Pierce pushed Artest to the ground. I know Ron and I'm sure he's not happy about that. Personally, I still think he's one of the best refs in the NBA.

Logistically, the NBA would have a tough time getting alternates to each of the playoff sites in the earlier rounds. Every round the NBA officials "make the cut" they get a monetary bonus, so by adding alternates you're introducing less qualified individuals into the mix and paying them for not reffing. That being said, it's still probably better having 2 officials and the alternate ref than just 2 officials, and the NBA has the money to pay the alternates.

Just food for thought...

The problem with that play is that Artest's fall was worthy of an Academy Award. But b/c the official turned around too soon, all he saw was the fall out of the corner of his eye and didn't see that Pierce barely nudged him. So he gave Pierce a T.


Officials are already paid for not officiating. Every NBA official that does not receive a playoff assignment gets a "Non-playoff Share". It's not as much as working the play-offs, but they still get a cut of the post-season pie.

The issue is whether to have three officials and an alternate, b/c the NBA will never intentionally go back to 2-whistle crews. The only time you'll see 2 officials on the floor is when there has been an injury to the 3rd official. My guess is that they will not add an alternate to the preliminary rounds. They'll just trust the best officials in the world to work a 2-whistle game.

How often does this happen in a season? It seems ironic to me that it has happened twice in the same series!

Ron Artest did flop.
Paul Pierce did push him extending both arms.
That is a T any way you cut it.
Let's get this out of the way - I'm originally from Indiana :D

Speaking of Paul Pierce, he is quickly getting a reputation in my mind of a player that is very good but is not a winner. Wasn't he on that US team that lost? He doesn't seem like he is ever having fun on the court.

Neither did Bill Russell nor Bernard King. Your point? :)

Would you be having fun if two of your last three general managers were Rick Pitino and Danny Ainge? And if you lost Antwain Walker, only to be replaced with Vin Baker? And if you lost Chauncey Billups, only to be replaced with Ricky Davis? And if you lost Jim O'Brien, only to be replaced with John Carroll?

The front office stinks, plain and simple.

Russell and King might not have looked like they were having fun becauase they were busy torching the other team :)
Most superstars today do have fun or so some sort of emotion on the court. The front office is pretty sorry. I don't see Ainge being there for a long time. Then again it is rare for anyone to be in place for a long time. Maybe my observation of Pierce should be more along the lines of he is supposed to be the franchise so he should do something other than pout when he is on the losing end. The guys who win have a certain quality about them that I haven't seen in him. I'm not even talking about winning the championship. Look at Garnett, he has always had "it" he just hasn't had the help. He might not have the right help now but nobody can say that he hasn't done his part on both ends of the court. Kobe is another example, he has a split personality on the court. If the "championship Kobe" shows up then the Lakers are a favorite to win. If the "selfish Kobe" shows up then it will be a tall order. It is like he has the ability to be the best player in the league but attitude, smarts and effort hamper him at times. He can even change during the game like he did on Sunday.
I'm just tired of seeing Pierce on the sideline looking like a million dollar baby!

Like what? Wave the towel like M.L. Carr -- for the other team? How should he look when he's on the losing end? He went from Conference Finals 2 years ago, to 8th place with a pathetic losing record. How would like him to look?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I would like for him to be in the game and bring his team back or at least put up a fight! He is supposed to be their superstar isn't he?
Aren't you from that area? If you've never seen him on the bench pouting then you haven't watched very many of their games. It isn't like other "stars" when they are on the losing end. It is my opinion of him but, I would buy you a steak dinner if he ever makes it to the finals with Boston. He doesn't have "it."

So you're saying that he tanks the game if he feels the Celts are out of it? Is that your contention? Are you saying that he stops trying when the game is lopsided? I'm honestly just trying to figure out what the heck you're saying.

Again, I'll ask, what would you like him to do while he's on the bench at the end of a blowout? Look happy? It's not like he takes himself out of the game (a la Pippen) b/c he's not happy with the plays the team is running. What should he be doing that he's not?

I'm not saying he tanks the game, I'm saying he doesn't have the "it" that other stars have had. If you are a boston fan and you think he is OK then I'm OK with that. There are fans here in DC that think the Redskins are going to the Superbowl just because they have Joe Gibbs. They also think the Wizards are good. I lived in Phoenix when Buddy Ryan was hired and they thought they had arrived. I mention these things to say I understand fan loyalty. I have to keep it real. For instance, I like the 49ers. They will probably be horrible and I will not defend a pro athlete or make excuses. I like the Lakers but after the playoffs something is going to change and it will probably not be for the good. If you think there isn't anything wrong with Pierce then that is fine. I'm sure the Pacers wouldn't mind playing them as long as he is on the team every year in the playoffs. Great players aren't always winners. That is purely my opinion or Pierce and if something changes then my opinion of him could change but I don't see it happening. If you don't agree I understand but it is an opinion that wasn't given to me like I see way too often. If I shouldn't have posted this then I apologize. I just love to talk about sports, almost all sports.

PS - I can't say the way Pierce looks on this board and it isn't a term or word I use anyway.

Tommy, I'm not asking for an apology. You're obviously entitled to your opinion. I'm just trying to figure out what your opinion is. Pierce doesn't have "it". Ok, I guess I can't really argue with that. On the other hand, he's the best player the Celtics have had since Bird retired.

I do watch the Celts quite a bit, and it seems to me that he plays hard when he's in the game; he does whatever the team asks him to do; he's not a selfish player. And he's done all this after he almost died in a knife attack. The only "superstar" thing he probably doesn't do is "make everybody around him better". And he can't do anything about the fact that people outside Boston don't adore him.

So he doesn't have "it". If we could get a couple players just like Pierce, even without "it", we'd destroy the East every year.

earlier in the thread nba mechanics were being discussed does anyone know where i could find an nba or fiba mechanics mannual.

FIBA manual can be found at http://www.fiba.com under Free Publications. For the two-person mechanics see:

http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/dow...sp?file_id=219


I have a hard copy of the NBA mechanics manual (not very extensive), but I don't know if you can find it online or purchase one. Sorry I can't help you more on this point.