Did anyone notice that Teddy Valentine was using two hand reporting in the Duke game? Also I noticed some two hand reporting in the UVA/VT games. IMHO, its alot easier than the one hand reporting and it slows you down too. Comments are welcomed.

My comments are we aren't supposed to do it in the men's game. If we do it, along with walking and talking, I think we need to work on making it look good. It is just another mechanic that I think can look weak or strong. There is a league we could use as an example but nobody watches that league. :rolleyes:

I like the NBA walk and talk. I think it looks good and actually is easy to implement.

I think the keys are walk to same speed after every foul call. Speeding up or slowing down could be a tell that you're miffed (sp?). Think of playing Texas Hold 'Em. You look at your two pocket cards, then look up. If you look up right away, it often means you have two cards that are easy to remember, such as a pair or suited connectors. The key in Hold Em is to act the same no matter what cards you have.

Other points: don't make eye contact with anyone except the table when you're reporting with the walk and talk.

I agree 100%. It is not proper mechanics but they can do whatever they want because of who they are.

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 would have liked to seen it when Ted was doing it, because from what I heard John Clougherty (ACC supervisor) and Gerald Boudreaux(SEC supervisor) don't mind if you use it on a double number i.e., 22,33,44,55. Why they wouldn't care for any of the other numbers is beyond me.

What am I missing here? :confused:

The other legal numbers, other than double numbers, are single numbers. <b>How</b> can you use <b>two</b>-hand reporting on 0, 1 , 2 , 3 ,4 or 5?

I mean other numbers such as 34, 25, 10, so and so forth.

You mean that those supervisors are saying that that you can use 2 hands for #22, but you have to use 1 hand for #23?

Now I agree with you. That's beyond me also. Doesn't make sense at all.

I didn't hear it straight from the horses mouth, but my mentor is an SEC official and another guy I know is an ACC official.

The SEC uses two hand reporting. They are experimenting with it.

I wish they'd quit doing that crap. I hate the way the NBA mechanics have filtered down to the college/prep level. I think we need to look different if for no other reason than we ARE different. There's too many people that think the rules for 7th grade and the NBA are the same. Sheesh, I had a guy argue with me for 5 minutes (I was sitting, waiting for my next game, otherwise, I'd have left) that we should only shoot one FT for a technical foul (this was back in the '90s when everyone south of the NBA shot 2 FTs). I couldn't convince him, even when my partner handed me his rule book and I showed him the text.

At any rate, it'd be one thing if there was a good reason to use two handed reporting or other NBA signals, but there isn't. One reason the NBA uses the mechanics it does is because it wants to be different from college/prep.

Georgia High School Association started using 2 hand reporting (for double digit numbers) this year. Walk and talk.

There's no reason to NOT walk and talk. Who needs to sprint to a "reporting" area? Clear the players and report.

I hate to tell you that you are wrong but you are. They are not experimenting with it at all. When Guthrie was there he didn't care how you reported, he just wanted guys to get plays right, and since he loves the officiating mechanics of the NBA alot of the guys he hired kind of fit that mold and went along with it. The two hand reporting you see is still coming from his time as supervisor of officials.

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

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.

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

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?

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....

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 :rolleyes: what type of foul it is, but I know someone else would argue.

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.