2 Hand Reporting

[Raymond]

Don't forget NCAA Women use 2-hand reporting, it's not just an NBA "thing".

[jeffpea]

hey RefTN - using two hands to report 22 makes sense because the official scorer can't confuse that number; he/she can become confused when you report 23 with two hands (is it 23 or 32? do you report the numbers as if you're reading it or as if he/she is reading it?). Because it is not a standard mechanic, not everyone is on the same page as to how to do it (i.e. 2 in left-hand 3 in right-hand or vice versa).

Personally, I think running to a clear area, stopping, and then reporting looks alot better than walking and talking. I like no "bird dogging" and no preliminary signal at the spot of the foul (everyone should be able to see what you called) - but walking and talking doesn't work for me.

[tomegun]

Given the way I see a lot of guys reporting in person and on TV, I would agree: walking and talking with two hands does look like crap. But, the way the guys in the NBA do it looks strong.

jeffpea, you report with two hands so the person at the table reads it like normal. The officials right hand is the msd and the left hand is the lsd

[Forksref]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Teddy's been doing it all year. He usually doesn't signal the nature of the foul, either, just the number. IMO, he has it just right. Who CARES if we signal push, hack, hold, etc?

I agree with Rich. I think we don't need to signal the nature of the foul. Besides, there is no consistency in those signals. In Fed, I'd like to see two hand and no signal for the type of foul.

Can we make suggestions to the rules committee with regard to mechanics?

[tomegun]

Since it was discussed in another thread that some officials don't verbalize the type of foul, wouldn't coaches, fans and players always ask what the player did to committ a foul? I'm not against doing away with signaling the type of foul, I just think all what-ifs should be looked at.

[Rich]

Originally posted by tomegun
Since it was discussed in another thread that some officials don't verbalize the type of foul, wouldn't coaches, fans and players always ask what the player did to committ a foul? I'm not against doing away with signaling the type of foul, I just think all what-ifs should be looked at.

Who CARES what type of foul it is? All common fouls are penalized in the same way.

Many top officials I see don't report the nature of the foul near the end of the game when it becomes a free-throw-fest. Quick number and move into position....

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Who CARES what type of foul it is? All common fouls are penalized in the same way.

Many top officials I see don't report the nature of the foul near the end of the game when it becomes a free-throw-fest. Quick number and move into position....

OK, you are talking about obvious fouling situations where everyone knows what type of foul and why. The opponents of this change would still argue that it is communication and the coaches, players, etc. will want to know what type of foul it is.

I don't CARE what type of foul it is, but I know someone else would argue.

[Raymond]

Just from my experiences, I've found that signaling a blow to the head or showing contact to the elbow preclude having to answer questions from a coach on those fouls that are not obvious.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by BadNewsRef
Just from my experiences, I've found that signaling a blow to the head or showing contact to the elbow preclude having to answer questions from a coach on those fouls that are not obvious.

I can't imagine an experienced ref not knowing this could be a possibility. There are times when coaches as, "what did he do?" now; taking away the signals will undoubtedly increase this.
Still, I'm not totally against it, just looking at what the arguments would be.