two -person mechanic

I attended the TASO meeting here in Dallas today and learned of a new "Texas exception" regarding foul reporting in shooting situations.

The change is that when a foul is called that will necessitate free throws, the calling official will report and REMAIN table side. The lead will, as a result administer the free throws opposite the table. Many of us were surprised at this change. Any other states adopting this practice?

[deecee]

to 3-man mechanincs -- probably to answer any questions the coaches might have or to T them up because how mad they are.

[SMEngmann]

Not here, but I like the mechanic when working 3 person, I think it would only help the game to bring it to 2 person.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by deecee
to 3-man mechanincs -- probably to answer any questions the coaches might have or to T them up because how mad they are.

In high school, it also makes it easier to deal with table problems, scoreboard problems, substitute problems, and so forth.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by MPLAHE
I attended the TASO meeting here in Dallas today and learned of a new "Texas exception" regarding foul reporting in shooting situations.

The change is that when a foul is called that will necessitate free throws, the calling official will report and REMAIN table side. The lead will, as a result administer the free throws opposite the table. Many of us were surprised at this change. Any other states adopting this practice?

Definitely think its a good idea but doesn't that contradict the idea of "switching on every foul"?

[JRutledge]

I do not think it is a good idea. I think it is better to have the officials in the normal position. I understand why they would do that, but in 2 person the officials have more to look at. In 3 Person the Trail is not doing a lot (which is more than likely going to be the calling official). In two person if you have your back to the bench, you cannot see subs clearly and now you have a coach in your ear possibly while you are concentrating on the court. I guess I could do this. It just would not be my first choice of a mechanic.

Peace

[Lotto]

We've been using this 2-person mechanic on the girl's side in NY for a couple of years now. The rationale was to have the calling official closer to the bench to facilitate communication. If we feel as though the situation is hostile, the calling official can go opposite table as trail instead of tableside. For the most part, it works just fine.

[Kelvin green]

If we remember a few years ago we went away from Cadilac positions to put us opposite table so we could better administer the game. We went to current position so we could see the the scorer better, subs reporting better.

The idea was to get us away from the coaches, and now we want to go back. I agree in a three person game this works very well and in fact would have it no other way.

In a NBA 2 peson crew your in front of one bench but usually using rules like that the teams have a clue. In a lot of NFHS games I am not sure I want to be in front of a coach all the time especially as JRut mentions that we have a whole lot more to deal with than a 3 person crew

[Mregor]

This is where I've always had an issue with the Fed Mechanics. In 3-person, they want you tableside to be approachable after a foul. Yet, on a DQ, we have the awkward mechanic of having the non-calling official notify the coach of the DQ because they are afraid of confrontation. Either we are approachable or chicken$hit. I personally feel that anything we can do to be more available, within limits, is better.

Mregor

[Junker]

Are they giving you the option of going away after a T? In 3 man you have the option of going away if it will help avoid problems. I also like the idea of being close to communicate with the coaches, but there are times when it's better not to be there.

[Tim Roden]

I'm reading this and I beleive what you are talking about is in 3 person only. The two person mechanic remains the same as we switch and trail goes opposite. I just looked at the TASO web site and I don't see anything to what you are saying refering to two man.

[Texref]

I attended the District Meeting in Denton. They didn't mention anything about this in that meeting. The only "funny" thing that Ronnie said was regarding the team control foul. We are supposed to initially signal the same as a player control (hand behind head). The rationale behind this is that the coaches already know that we don't shoot when they see that signal. I don't like it, but... oh well. Have a great year!

[jritchie]

we were told in our meeting here in kentucky, to use the actual foul signal (block, push, etc.) followed by the player control and say the words "team control foul" for the first month or so till everyone gets used to not shooting on a team control foul!!! don't like it either, but i guess we'll do it if it helps everyone to understand and can avoid arguments the first few games

[Tim Roden]

I was at the Denton meeting too. What Texref was saying is the same as what Jr is saying. The exception is we are to do it all year. Make a foul signal and then put your hand behind your head.

[Texas Aggie]

I work in Texas and will bring this up in our meeting this week, but I can assure you, you will not want to signal "player control foul" unlee you have a player control foul. Unless I hear the TASO bb president say that, there's no mechanic that even comes close to hinting it would be that way.

What you want to do is blow the foul with the fist, then signal the other team's ball by pointing in their direction. For example, "illegal screen, blue ball," then you go and report the foul. Since you will have a team control foul in EVERY game you work, the coaches will figure out the rule very fast. Probably in scrimmages, and 90% of your TC fouls are going to be similar to what I described above, whether they are illegal screens or not.