Fresh From Camp Tidbits....

[truerookie]

All, the feedback the clinician provided was shocking to me because, I never viewed the signal from the perspective him presented. I viewed it as just another approved signal in the rule book.

Z, the feedback he provided was along the lines of what you was told previously.


Chuck, The point, I was attempting to drive home is I learned something new. I received a different perspective on a approved mechanic signal and how some coaches, (not all) would try to use it to drive home a point when, the slightest touch on their player would give them just cause to say it when it was called against them.


BNF, What you stated is exactly what the clinician said. " It tends to get coaches harping for hand checks the rest of the game." So, to save yourself the headache. He suggest and it was just a suggestion either use signal #30 or #32 it looks stronger.


JR, The clinician, communicated in a manner in which his interpretation of a rule or signal was not the core of the feedback in which he provided.


You have to keep in mind anything stated at this point in my infancy (just starting my 3rd year) career of officiating will be SHOCKING!!!


P.S. If all else fails, just in case this officiating (thingy) does not work out. I still have my application to Champs.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

All, the feedback the clinician provided was shocking to me because, I never viewed the signal from the perspective him presented. I viewed it as just another approved signal in the rule book.

Yup, and your view was also the correct view imo. The handchecking signal is simply used to convey to the scoring table, coaches, fans, viewers at home, etc., exactly what the foul that was committed actually was. What could be more descriptive to anybody that was wondering what call was made? That's the reason that both the FED and NCAA put signals in the book.

Coaches might miss the quick little hand-push that throws a dribbler/cutter off-balance, or they can also be easily screened when it happens also. And who cares if they do harp for hand-checks? Aren't you still gonna call them (hopefully consistently) the whole game anyway? That's just a dumb comment from that clinician imo. If you call a push on a rebound against them, of course they're gonna lobby for the same call at the other end. Handchecking ain't any different.

TrueRookie, listen to the people that you report to- i.e. your assignor or your evaluator. That's all that matters- not some goober at a camp trying to re-invent the wheel. Ideally, you want everybody in your area using the same mechanics. If everybody that you work with is using the "handchecking" signal and you're not, then you're "that guy". And vice-versa.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Chuck, The point, I was attempting to drive home is I learned something new.

Then that's awesome. I agree that it's good to see things from a different perspective, even if you don't necessarily agree with it.

You have to keep in mind anything stated at this point in my infancy (just starting my 3rd year) career of officiating will be SHOCKING!!!

In that case, here's something else to shock you. . . it doesn't matter what signal you use, b/c the coach is going to complain about it anyway!!

[SMEngmann]

In my opinion, the signals to the table are supposed to be communicative in nature, so I would personally advocate altering the "official" signal somewhat to communicate what actually happened to cause me to blow the whistle, particularly when I get that "what'd he do" look from the coach. I think it saves a lot of hassle just to show everyone what he did than to do the by the book mechanic, particularly if the foul is off-ball. If we have a swim move type play in the post, or an off-ball illegal screen, I find it to be stronger to just show everyone what happened. If it was a knee, show a knee.

Of course I must include the caveat that I'm just sharing a personal philosophy, and that if a supervisor tells me to do everything by the book, you can bet I would do it that way. That's the most important thing, have your own philosophy, but do what the boss tells you if you wanna work for that boss.

[Camron Rust]

The hand check signal is completely redundant. Every single foul that can be deemed a hand check could also be a hold, push, or illegal use of hands. The signal was only added a few years ago...with no new fouling action being defined...just a new formalized name to what was already a foul that had a signal.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The hand check signal is completely redundant. Every single foul that can be deemed a hand check could also be a hold, push, or illegal use of hands. The signal was only added a few years ago...with no new fouling action being defined...just a new formalized name to what was already a foul that had a signal.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but on the basis you are putting forth we could even eliminate the push, hold, IUoH and block signals, along with the handcheck and just show the fist at the table. After all, it's the fact that it's a foul rather than a violation, that's important.

I'm with Engemann, signals are about communicating. If the thing that's most needed in today's game is communicating with coaches, working with coaches, managing coaches, and thereby the game, then why not rethink our approach to signalling? Coaches, players and fans don't know the rules well, and they surely don't think in terms of exactly which rule was violated when a foul was committed. They think much more in terms of "that's a foul" and "that's not a foul." Their distinguishing criteria is not derived directly from the book. So why do we signal as if it is?

Would it be more effective if our signals more closely matched the actual act that caused the foul? The handcheck, IMHO, communicates the nature of the foul very well. There are certainly others we could add that would aid in that communication. Didn't the NCAA women add some new signals a few years back (like hit to the head)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm not saying you're wrong, but on the basis you are putting forth we could even eliminate the push, hold, IUoH and block signals, along with the handcheck and just show the fist at the table. After all, it's the fact that it's a foul rather than a violation, that's important.

I'm with Engemann, signals are about communicating. If the thing that's most needed in today's game is communicating with coaches, working with coaches, managing coaches, and thereby the game, then why not rethink our approach to signalling? Coaches, players and fans don't know the rules well, and they surely don't think in terms of exactly which rule was violated when a foul was committed. They think much more in terms of "that's a foul" and "that's not a foul." Their distinguishing criteria is not derived directly from the book. So why do we signal as if it is?

Would it be more effective if our signals more closely matched the actual act that caused the foul? The handcheck, IMHO, communicates the nature of the foul very well. There are certainly others we could add that would aid in that communication. Didn't the NCAA women add some new signals a few years back (like hit to the head)?

I agree with you entirely. I only intended to reinforce the point that handcheck with or without the name or signal is and always has been a foul and that, previously, it just fell under one of 3 (hold, push, IUoH) of the other 4 fouls (but not block). A handchecking foul was added not to address a new form of contact but to emphasize an already illegal form of contact that was too often getting ignored. I don't believe that the primary reason for adding was for improving communication.