Closely guarded? No. Just throw out your arms.

[devdog69]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Like I said in an earlier post. It is a stupid mechcanic. If the official is not giving a visual count then there is no closely guarded situation.

MTD, Sr.

Got it. We heard you the first time...If it's not spelled out in the NFHS rule book then it can not possibly be of any use and users of the mechanic should be shot on sight, right?

Imho, this mechanic will be NFHS approved within two years. It does provide good communication during certain situations...especially when the count is on, you're at 4 1/2 when the guard breaks contact momentarily but the defense is right back on him, using that mechanic lets everybody know that the count was off and starts over. If you simply switch from the left arm to the right arm and start counting again, it's going to be less effective, period.

[lmeadski]

discussed this at our last meeting. Decision: personal preference, just make sure all the refs are on the same page for consistency during the game. Personally, I do use it to show the coaches I am paying attention to closely guarded.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by devdog69

Got it. We heard you the first time...If it's not spelled out in the NFHS rule book then it can not possibly be of any use and users of the mechanic should be shot on sight, right?

Imho, this mechanic will be NFHS approved within two years. It does provide good communication during certain situations...especially when the count is on, you're at 4 1/2 when the guard breaks contact momentarily but the defense is right back on him, using that mechanic lets everybody know that the count was off and starts over. If you simply switch from the left arm to the right arm and start counting again, it's going to be less effective, period.

No, H.S. officials should not be shot on sight if seen using this mechanic. I don't like seeing college officials using it and I am a college official myself. The closely guarded mechanic is self-explainatory: If an official is showing a visual hand count then a closely guarded situation exsists; if an official is not showing visual hand count then a closely guarded situation does not exsist; and if a closely guarded situation changes from dribbling to holding or vice versa, the official will change hands for his visual hand count. That sounds pretty logical to me. What more communication is needed? The out strectched hand mechanic was adopted by coaches (remember, coaches make up the entire NCAA Rules Committee), need I say more.

MTD, Sr.

[26 Year Gap]

This seems to fall under the same category as pointing to the floor when a shooter is on the 3 point line for a shot release.

If you are consistently giving visual counts throughout the game, then by NOT giving a visual count when the defender is more than 6 feet away, you are eliminating the 'need' to use that mechanic.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by 26 Year Gap
This seems to fall under the same category as pointing to the floor when a shooter is on the 3 point line for a shot release.

Actually, I've been told by some very good officials that this action is done to communicate to their partner in a 3-person crew that they have the shooter inside the arc. This lets the other official, C or T, know that this official has the play covered and not to signal a 3 pt goal.

[Snake~eyes]

Only time I would use this mechanic is if the coach was asking for a 5-second count, I would use it purely as communication to let the coach know that its greater than 6 feet.

[JRutledge]

I have learned to not worry anymore about what mechanics officials use. I want officials that are going to call the game properly, not sweat a mechanic that communicates something. I work college ball and I rarely use the "no closely guarded" signal at all. I do wish I had the signal this past week on a play where the defender for some reason was scared to get close the ball handler, but wanted a 5 second count (it was a HS game) at that same time. The mechanic in my opinion serves a purposed and can be used properly. I think the NF is too uptight about adopting things from the higher levels and does not want to admit a signal or lack of signal would be useful. Signals are used to communicate to everyone in the stands, TV or benches what we are doing or sometimes what we are looking at. Why not use a tool that will help the understanding process?

Peace

[tomegun]

MTD, I have a question for you. I know that one is approved and one isn't, but what kind of signal do you use, at the table, when a coach calls a full timeout?

[tomegun]

Originally posted by lmeadski
discussed this at our last meeting. Decision: personal preference, just make sure all the refs are on the same page for consistency during the game. Personally, I do use it to show the coaches I am paying attention to closely guarded.

If someone told me to pre-game the use of this mechanic so we all do the same thing, that would be someone I wouldn't listen to anymore! IMO, this is almost as ridiculous as the thought that everyone should wear patent leather shoes or pleated pants.

[Kelvin green]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I have learned to not worry anymore about what mechanics officials use. I want officials that are going to call the game properly, not sweat a mechanic that communicates something. I work college ball and I rarely use the "no closely guarded" signal at all. I do wish I had the signal this past week on a play where the defender for some reason was scared to get close the ball handler, but wanted a 5 second count (it was a HS game) at that same time. The mechanic in my opinion serves a purposed and can be used properly. I think the NF is too uptight about adopting things from the higher levels and does not want to admit a signal or lack of signal would be useful. Signals are used to communicate to everyone in the stands, TV or benches what we are doing or sometimes what we are looking at. Why not use a tool that will help the understanding process?

Peace

You are so right. NFHS is too worried about adopting things from NCAA/NBA/ becausse they are too uptight. Basketball has evolved and NCAA and NBA have adopted things to make game better yet NFHS is way to afraid to admit the game has changed and we should learn from others

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
You are so right. NFHS is too worried about adopting things from NCAA/NBA/ becausse they are too uptight. Basketball has evolved and NCAA and NBA have adopted things to make game better yet NFHS is way to afraid to admit the game has changed and we should learn from others

You guys better be careful, there are people who don't like the NBA, even though they spend money and a considerable amount of time making sure officials are in the right places to see plays. But, there are people who almost worship some college officials who jump around and make officials all over the world look like fools!

[zebraman]

Originally posted by tomegun

You guys better be careful, there are people who don't like the NBA, even though they spend money and a considerable amount of time making sure officials are in the right places to see plays. But, there are people who almost worship some college officials who jump around and make officials all over the world look like fools!

You guys both sound like bitter people with an axe to grind. Tomegun you didn't used to be so cynical. What gives?

Z

[tomegun]

Zebraman,

I'm not bing cynical, just being real (with a realistic viewpoint of how things in life are). Did I say something that isn't true? There are many people who have voiced a disdain for anything dealing with the NBA. Whatever the commissioner tells them to do,they do, and for a rookie salary of more than 100k I would too. That doesn't change the fact that they are still the best officials in the world. Whether a "buzzword" or a new mechanic, I think we should take advantage of ANYTHING to make the game better. One HUGE element of making the game better is taking the responsibility to be an example for younger officials. How can I (we) do that if I don't want to do the same for someone at a higher level?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


You guys both sound like bitter people with an axe to grind. Tomegun you didn't used to be so cynical. What gives?

Z

I know you are not talking about someone being bitter and having an axe to grind. Every time I make a post that does not jive with your area, you start name calling and making all kinds of claims. You are not in the position to say anything about what others should think when you go around all high and mighty about officiating or anything else said on this board. Give me a freakin break.

Peace

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I know you are not talking about someone being bitter and having an axe to grind. Every time I make a post that does not jive with your area, you start name calling and making all kinds of claims. You are not in the position to say anything about what others should think when you go around all high and mighty about officiating or anything else said on this board. Give me a freakin break.

Peace

Rut,

You are non-existent on this board. You have alienated just about everyone on this board at one time or another. Does it ever enter your mind of why so many posts end with one of your posts? It's because most of us just ignore most of your blather. I have no axe to grind nor am I bitter.... I just don't agree with many of your senseless and mindless diatribes. I have agreed with you occasionally when you have put a decent argument together and used sentences that actually make sense.

Z