I don't watch 24, and that's not quite my point, but appreciate your sarcasm.;) What I'm saying is, it seems (and feels to me personally) as arbitrary a delay of game administration caused by the officials, as would, say, mandating that the ball not be put back in play following a time-out after 30 seconds of a 60-second time-out when both teams are on the court, ready to go, and waiting, until the full 60 seconds have elapsed.

I guess my philosophy on switching mechanics is more utilitarian. I think they should be focused on doing things unhurredly and accurately, yes, but also have a sense of utilitarianism, insomuch as being focused on how the ball can next be put back into play in the least delaying manner - relative to where the officials (especially the calling official) end up following correct reporting procedures, so as to best facilitate the continuation of the game.

Translation: I make up my own mechanics.

CT Mechanics
 

Connecticut IAABO Mechanics:
No long switches when foul is called in the backcourt and there is no change of possession or direction.

I don't do anything that I wasn't taught to me by college officials who preferred to apply two items from 3-person mechanics to the 2-person game. I didn't make up anything. I don't advocate making up anything. I simply prefer 3-person switching mechanics - as do many of the responders to this thread. (Thanks for the belittlement, though.)

And incidentally, on a happy note, I worked tonight's game with a former college official who pre-gamed no long-switching and bumping-and-running. First time in a long time. I was quite content.

FYI - Jrut - It's in there now.

:D<i> </i>

Why we switch.
 

In my opinion, the majority of contact is called by the lead and happens in the paint. So I think that one of the reasons we switch on foul calls, is that, if your partner is calling everything in sight and you are calling nothing, there is a balance on both ends of the floor. I agree with the idea that if the trail is the calling official in the front court, that no switch should be made. (I know what the mechanic is, but it probably should be changed.)

I hate it when we go out there like drones and do things we don't know the reason for. I think we should always ask why things are. Know the rule, but just as importantly know what the intent of the rule is. Always ask why.

Are you saying he did not want to long switch but he did want to bump-and run, or are you saying he did not want to do either?

Do you know why the man no longer officiates at the college level ?

1. Sorry for the confusion - I needed a double-italicized "and." No long-switching, and did bump-and-run.

2. A wife and 3 kids, according to him.