i know ncaa does this, but in high school we have been told before not to do this... have they just added this into the rule book (2.9.3) or is it just a state adopted thing..or am i reading it wrong...seems like to me if it's in the nfhs book, we should all be able to do it...

It's been in the NFHS Mechanics manual for several years (3?)

i realize that!!!
 

i was just asking does any other states not allow this?? it doesn't make any sense not to, but kentucky still will not let us do this in high school situations!

I havent heard one way or another in Ohio...We (or at least I) almost always bounce on sidelines and almost always hand on end lines.

On the sidelines, it lets you get back out of the way.

Just fine (in fact recommended for a better angle) to bounce the ball to the thrower on the sidelines. I can't think of anything that our state has asked us not to do that the FED allows. Why would they do that? Aren't the states "working for" NFHS?

Z

In Illinois, the interpretation is to bounce the ball when along the sideline and NEVER along the baseline.

The rational is that you should almost always bounce the ball along the sideline because it allows you to obtain better positioning in case the play moves towards the backcourt (lob entry pass, quick steal, etc.). This is even the case when administering the thow-in at the begining of a period or even after a technical foul.

There is no advantage gained on the baseline; you should be putting the ball in at the nearest spot to the violation or foul. As a result, you should never administer throw-in via the "bounce".

I don't have my officials manual with me, but I'm quite certain that you are allowed to bounce the ball to the thrower along the baseline in the <b> backcourt </b>. Doing so, allows you a wider view and lets you observe a lot more than being closer to the thrower. Note however that there are no examples that show the referee bouncing the ball <b> across </b> the key.

Z

In our gigh school association in Ohio, we instruct our members to bouce the ball along the sidelines and also along the endline in the backcourt.

But, hand the ball to the player along the endline when the ball is staying in the front court.

We have been down this road before.
 

Z,

Jeff is not telling you what the NF allows, he is telling you what the IHSA does not allow us to do. These are the people that assign us playoff games and dictate our status as officials. The IHSA told us not to bounce the ball EVER ON THE BASELINE, because officials were more likely to cheat up the court. This came from the Head IHSA Basketball Clinician himself and is taught by the other IHSA Clinicians in basketball. As I have told you before, we have directives that are not in a 100% agreement with the NF.

Peace

Re: We have been down this road before.
 

Jeff is not telling you what the NF allows, he is telling you what the IHSA does not allow us to do.
<b>
Yeah, I understood that. He also said that there is no advantage gained by bouncing the ball to a thrower on the end line in backcourt and that is incorrect.
</b>
These are the people that assign us playoff games and dictate our status as officials.
<b>
understood that too
</b>
The IHSA told us not to bounce the ball EVER ON THE BASELINE, because officials were more likely to cheat up the court.
<b>
So why don't they just tell you to not cheat up the court rather than to not bounce the ball? Correct the bad habits rather than eliminating a useful mechanic.
</b>
This came from the Head IHSA Basketball Clinician himself and is taught by the other IHSA Clinicians in basketball. As I have told you before, we have directives that are not in a 100% agreement with the NF.
<b>
It must be a bummer to work in a state whose interpreter's think they know more than their bosses, the heads of NFHS.

</b>
Z

Re: Re: We have been down this road before.
 

Well that was an opinion. There is nothing that says you have to disagree with that. Just because the NF does it or allows it, does not make it right.


<b>
"The IHSA told us not to bounce the ball EVER ON THE BASELINE, because officials were more likely to cheat up the court."
</b>

Why did Bush go to war? That is a question you would have to ask them. I just know this was the remedy to handle it. They said it was better to hand the ball to the thrower. I do not disagree.

Well considering that the Head Clinician is a former Big Ten Officials, I would say on many levels the answer to that question is YES.

I realize Z you feel the NF is God and can do no wrong, but many around here and across the country do not agree with that feeling. I have only officiated in one state than Illinois in my career (baseball in Iowa) and it is not uncommon to have states come up with their own directives and practices. You do not have to agree, but that does not mean we all have to agree with you. ;)

Peace

Re: Re: Re: We have been down this road before.
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRutledge
Well considering that the Head Clinician is a former Big Ten Officials, I would say on many levels the answer to that question is YES.

No, the answer is NO. He may have been god in the Big Ten (and he may be your God), but in high school basketball he is working for the NFHS. I know that it drives the NFHS nuts when officials who do both HS and college cannot separate the two and try to filter college mechanics down to HS games. It is a constant battle for NFHS to try to avoid getting "big timed" by well-meaning college officials who try to make the high school game "better."


I realize Z you feel the NF is God and can do no wrong, but many around here and across the country do not agree with that feeling.


To respect the rules and mechanics of an organization you are working for requires me to think of them as God? I don't think so. When I do an NFHS game, I use NFHS mechanics.


Z

Wow - the level of discourse gets "heated" pretty fast! The upcoming Presidential Election must be rubbing off......or maybe we all need the season to start real soon.

The whole purpose of the bounce/no bounce technique is to put yourself in a better position to anticipate and officate the play. Clearly there is a distinct advantage gained by the official bouncing the ball on the sideline. I'm not sure I see where you would gain an advantage along an endline in the backcourt. It would be easy to say that it's "lazy" to bounce on the endline, but that starts the "name-calling" again........When you see someone bounce, do they back-up into a good position and THEN bounce/administer (which is what you should do), or do they bounce and then move (which is poor positioning - you shouldn't move after administering).

I agree with the interp. that you shouldn't bounce on any endline in any situation. As with all things when it comes to officiating....."when in Rome".

Jeffpea,

I agree with the "do as in Rome." It's just too bad that there are so many Romans who think they are Caeser. :confused:

Any time an interpreter in our state has tried to implement "their own ideas," it has been followed shortly thereafter by a bulletin from our state to all associations to do it according to the NFHS's way and ignore Caeser.

I agree that it's "lazy" to bounce the ball across the key on the endline in backcourt. However, to get outside the player and bounce the ball to them actually requires a few more steps and allows you to see the thrower (and the player defending them) plus some other players in backcourt. It's a better view than being closer to the thrower IMHO.

We always back up to get a good angle and <b> then </b> bounce the ball to the thrower.

Z

I guess I was assuming that you would ALWAYS administer the ball (in the situation you describe) while on the "outside" (nearest the sideline) of the player. As a result, handing the ball and taking a couple of steps back will provide you with the angle/view you need.

Unless the spot throw-in is at the 3pt line, I can't think of a reason to administer the ball when you are standing on the "inside" (nearest the lane) of the thrower. There certainly is NEVER a reason to administer the ball to the thrower across the lane and then back out (across the lane; under the basket). That, in my opinion, is lazy.

In 3 person mechanics: When the is to be inbounded deep in the corner on the sideline which is the proper mechanic, the lead to bounce the ball up to the player or for the trail to come down and bounce it. I've seen and done both. I let the trail handle it.

FED -- trail administers all side-line throw-ins.

Z,

Not sure how telling us what to do within the NF mechanic is "doing their own thing?" They had found that officials were cheating and going up the court, instead of staying in good position. So they said, "We will only hand the ball into the thrower from the end line." I guess I am not seeing the harm in that.

Every year in all the sports I work, someone has to come in and give a ruling or clarify a position because the NF did not make their position very clear. The NF only makes a ruling, they do not often explain in great detail why they change things or want us to do something in particular.

I will never understand you point that the NF is God and we only have to do what they say to the letter.

Peace

OK, I'm confused...in this post you said that it's poor positioning and you shouldn't move after administering the ball, but in your next post on this topic (if I knew how to include more than one quote, I would) you said to hand the ball to the thrower AND THEN MOVE BACK A FEW STEPS...so basically, when it comes to throw-ins on the endline in backcourt, you've just proven to us why it's a good idea to bounce the ball to the thrower, which I believe is allowed under NFHS mechanics...or am I reading your posts wrong?

We are aware of what the NF mechanic is, but the powers that be do not agree with it how officials were using one part of that mechanic. So they took away one of the options. I happen to agree with the officials from the IHSA on this. We have been using that mechanic for 2 years now and I have been using it religiously myself with no problems. Remember the NF gave us the option, they did not say you had to do one thing or the other. If the IHSA told us to bounce the ball if we wanted to, I would not bounce the ball ever. I know the NF gives us the option of being inside the thrower (in the FC) or outside the thrower on the end line. I only hand the ball on the outside because I feel I am in better position to call the play. Does that make me personally not compliant with the NF because I have found something that works for me?

Peace

Originally posted by JRutledge


Not sure how telling us what to do within the NF mechanic is "doing their own thing?" They had found that officials were cheating and going up the court, instead of staying in good position. So they said, "We will only hand the ball into the thrower from the end line." I guess I am not seeing the harm in that.

<b>
No big deal in the scheme of things, but why not just correct the officials who were cheating up the court. Correct the cheating official, not the mechanic which is very effective.
</b>

Every year in all the sports I work, someone has to come in and give a ruling or clarify a position because the NF did not make their position very clear.
<b>

Agreed, and that is called an interpretation. There is a big difference between interpreting a muddy rule and changing it outright.
</b>

</b>
I will never understand you point that the NF is God and we only have to do what they say to the letter.
<b>
You keep using that word "God." Just because I try to use standard NFHS mechanics and rules doesn't imply any worship (well, for you it does). I'll never understand why you worship at the feet of some college assignor who overrules the governing body for whom he works. There is a process in place to request a change in mechanics and rules through NFHS. To "ban" certain mechanics or change them on our own doesn't help anyone (except the ego of the person who anoints themself as Caeser).

Z

I could care less if you stood on your head and drop-kicked it to the thrower in Illinois...just didn't like the fact that jeffpea asserted that it was "bad" to do something, and then in the next post told us to do that "bad" thing... seemed kinda contradictory to me and I wanted a clarification of that point, not your justification for why you do one thing or the other...

The person to which Jeff is referring didn't "annoint himself Caeser". The IHSA has put him in charge of mechanics (among other things). IT's not one rogue "college assigner" trying to change things in his conference(s).

And, he doesn't work for the NFHS. The NFHS works for the states.


It's really no different from Kentucky (or whatever the original state was) forbidding any bounce passes.

Watch out, Big Brother is watching.
 

Maybe because they did not want to take that stand? Maybe, just maybe?

You are right, it is called and interpretation. But there have been many state interpretations that either the NF adopted (from this state) or changed their own interpretation because of concerns that have come directly from this state. I know in football the NF took on the logic as in football the NF put out several contradictory interpretations as it relates to the PSK rule. Our state interpreters told us to do it one way, the NF soon followed after they screwed the pooch. I do not consider that muddying the waters, I consider that common sense.

I use the word God, because just like a Christian or a Muslim that keeps referencing the words of the Bible or the Koran without any consideration for context or personal faith or denomination that someone might practice. I know when the Pope speaks about issues of God; I know I do not take in account his teachings as to how the Word of God is to be interpreted. It might be interesting to make note of, but not being a Catholic the Pope is just another human being. I am sure the Catholics feel the same way as to someone speaking outside of their religious faith and practices.


The governing body that we work for is the IHSA, not the NF.

I work about 95% of my games at the HS level. I work college but that does not carry over to my HS game philosophy. I am not talking about a college interpretation; I am telling you what a mechanic that was subscribed by our state interpreters and clinician that happens to be a former D1 Official. You are the one that claimed that the NF knows better than all involved. And by the way, the NF Basketball editor is a D1 Officials but on the women's side. It is very clear that some of the changes over the past few years are in direct compliance with the NCAA Women's philosophy and do not be surprised if more changes will follow. Not everyone is happy with those philosophies, but they are filtering back to the HS level.


I think Bob said this best. The NF works for the states. Unfortunately most people cannot call the NF directly for an interpretation or direction on situations that cause confusion or debate. I also know that many of the things that have been adopted as mechanics or philosophies have filter there way into the actual NF Rule and Mechanic books. Mary Struckoff was once the head person over the IHSA Officials Department. It has been suggested that she still has contact with the IHSA closely and has spoken a few times since she has left at IHSA functions. I realize you might think there is something wrong with coming up with a solution to a common problem, and that is your right to feel that way. I just think it is silly to think that the NF has all power and only their interpretations are solid. I guess out state should not throw out test questions that the NF writes because they are all knowing and powerful. Not that anyone from our state would be smart enough to know that there is confusion in many of their test questions or interpretations the NF can and has come up with. I guess we should all be like the people in the book <i>1984</i> and just follow blindly without dissention from “Big Brother.”

Peace

Rut,

You lost me once you got into your religious dissertation. I thought we were talking basketball and somehow the Pope is now posting up in the lane.
:rolleyes:

Z

Now you're just being silly - that's just semantics. My management actually "works for me", but it's the company policies that I am supposed to follow. Like I have said before, there is a process in place to get mechanics and rules changed through NFHS. The NFHS will assist in answering rules questions from state associations whenever called upon. If the interpreter has gone through those processes and got a change approved, great. Otherwise, it's just "I know better" behavior.

Z

We are talking basketball. I just do not worship the NF like you do. States in my opinion have every right to come up with practices, philosophies and mechanics that they choose to. If the NF does not like that, then I guess they have some recourse, but I am not sure what that would be.

The NF is just an organization with human beings, they cannot control everything.

Peace

I think you need to explain why the NF is God? Why do you have to ask other states if they want to make a very minor change? Are we going to be on punishment if we do not? <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_200v.gif' alt='Perturbed' border=0></a>

Peace