2-person Long-Switching

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

let's hold up the game another 5-7 seconds for....I'm sure some good reason,

Gasp!! Five to seven more seconds!?!?!?! How will we ever wake everybody up after making them wait that long for us to switch? I wanted to get home to see "24", but those 5-7 seconds will make me late!!

Good grief. What's the rush? There's a good reason NOT to switch in 3-whistle (calling official bench side) and there's a good reason TO switch in 2-whistle (don't have the same official calling the same foul on the same player twice in a row).

If that 5-7 seconds is your biggest worry in a game, you're doing a heck of a job. I got much bigger problems in my games.

[iref4him]

When the NBA had only two man crews, they did not do any long swtiches for fouls in the back court and the ball was put back in play in the back court.

I recently screwed up my ankle and had a hard to moving. My partner was in his 5th month of recovering from open heart surgery. He asked me if we could do no long switches and do it like the old NBA 2-man crew. I said fine. The game went no differently and it saved me from pushing on my ankle to much and helped him too.

I use to work in the summer pro-league and college open league in LA. We used NBA 2-man mechanics and NBA rules for both leagues. It was a great experience.

I don't think there is nothing wrong with no long switches. Sometimes I have gone from lead to lead 2 or 3 times because T had made the calls in front of them. BUt until it is changed..I will do long switches except for the above situation.

Side note: We have an assignor here in this association who does not like the ball being bounced to players for throw ins. He wants us to hand the ball to them. The manual says bounce pass is ok, but do what the assignor says to get games. Right?

[swkansasref33]

Originally Posted by iref4him

Side note: We have an assignor here in this association who does not like the ball being bounced to players for throw ins. He wants us to hand the ball to them. The manual says bounce pass is ok, but do what the assignor says to get games. Right?

I actually like bouncing the ball to the players in certain situations.
A. it allows me to see right down the line, and puts me in a better position to see the whole court quicker and,

B. It saves the kids ears from my whistle... anyone who uses a Fox-40 knows how loud they can get

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

There's a good reason NOT to switch in 3-whistle (calling official bench side) and there's a good reason TO switch in 2-whistle (don't have the same official calling the same foul on the same player twice in a row).

I'm not sure what your point is on the 3 whistle system. Virtually everything related to position after fouls is meant to get the calling official table side except when we go long with no FTs. As you might recall there was quite a bit of confusion when going table side was introduced regarding what to do on fouls in the backcourt with no free throws. I went to 3 camps that summer and was told to do this 3 different ways. I'm glad they settled on sliding instead of switching.

The 1 good reason for no long switch with 2 whistles is we can keep 4 eyes on the players while getting into position. Which btw is why it works with 3 whistles. You can keep 6 eyes on the players...(or if you're on the crew 5 good eyes)

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I'm not sure what your point is on the 3 whistle system.

Sorry. Somebody had mentioned that there are times in 3-whistle when nobody switches, even when we're staying in the frontcourt. I was merely pointing out that there's a good reason for that. Just as there's a good reason for switching in 2-whistle. They are different reasons, but they're good reasons for their respective systems. That was my only point.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Sorry. Somebody had mentioned that there are times in 3-whistle when nobody switches, even when we're staying in the frontcourt. I was merely pointing out that there's a good reason for that. Just as there's a good reason for switching in 2-whistle. They are different reasons, but they're good reasons for their respective systems. That was my only point.

I appreciate what you're saying, Scrapper, I just don't see agree with the logic behind that reasoning. I don't agree with either part of the argument:

1. "It significantly reduces the chances of the same official calling a consecutive foul on the same player."

1.A. The idea that one official is more likely enough to call the next foul on the same player - which, if we're going strictly by primaries, as it sounds, is only reduced by 17% in 3-person (and this doesn't take into acccount secondaries, good foul calls out-of-area, and the fact that players actually operate, even in the most basic of set offenses, in more than one primary, even in 2-person). So a 17% reduction in the chance of me calling a consecutive foul on the same player, minus some more percent for calls outside one's primary, minus some more percent for the fact that players and even man-to-man match-ups move between primaries, is not, in my opinion, a significant reduction.

1.B. Who cares if I call another foul on the same player. You want the game called consistently? There it is. Same illegal contact by same player = same foul call. Doesn't get more consistent than that. With all NFHS switching last Friday, I called 2 and 3 fouls against each team's best players in the paint, respectively, in the first half. Did anyone think I was out to get these players? Not that I heard, know of, or care about. It happens.

2. "It gives the officials a 'fresh look' at things." Moot argument, because we don't do arbitrary switching in 3-person. If that was the rationale behind this mechanic (switching after calling a foul as trail), the mechanic for the opposite in 3-person would not be in place.

Again - Scrapper - not ranting at you - just ranting.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Good grief. What's the rush? There's a good reason NOT to switch in 3-whistle (calling official bench side) and there's a good reason TO switch in 2-whistle (don't have the same official calling the same foul on the same player twice in a row).

There's the flaw in the logic! Which leads me to believe that either the person responsible for this is not home, no one's steering the boat, or they are just pain being stupid or stubborn, whichever you prefer. In 3-person, it's okay for the same person to remain in the position he's in, but in 2 person, we have to switch! Give me a break! At least in the NBA, they make the other 2 officials switch on these type of fouls which to me is better than everyone staying where they are.

I have never had a problem calling fouls on a player. If he deserves it, he's getting a foul, no matter where I'm at on the court. To suggest that they are concerned about me calling the same foul on the same player if he committs the same act again because I'm in the same position again, is bush league thinking, imo.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

There's the flaw in the logic! Which leads me to believe that either the person responsible for this is not home, no one's steering the boat, or they are just pain being stupid or stubborn, whichever you prefer. In 3-person, it's okay for the same person to remain in the position he's in, but in 2 person, we have to switch! Give me a break! At least in the NBA, they make the other 2 officials switch on these type of fouls which to me is better than everyone staying where they are.

I have never had a problem calling fouls on a player. If he deserves it, he's getting a foul, no matter where I'm at on the court. To suggest that they are concerned about me calling the same foul on the same player if he committs the same act again because I'm in the same position again, is bush league thinking, imo.

The difference in "logic" between the two is this....in 3 whistle games, the natural flow of rotations takes you from postition to position and therefore, maybe a different official makes the call as opposed to the same official dinging the same player two times in the same spot.., in two whistle this doesn't happen, you don't even switch sides....

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Gasp!! Five to seven more seconds!?!?!?! How will we ever wake everybody up after making them wait that long for us to switch? I wanted to get home to see "24", but those 5-7 seconds will make me late!!

Good grief. What's the rush? There's a good reason NOT to switch in 3-whistle (calling official bench side) and there's a good reason TO switch in 2-whistle (don't have the same official calling the same foul on the same player twice in a row).

If that 5-7 seconds is your biggest worry in a game, you're doing a heck of a job. I got much bigger problems in my games.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

[BillyMac]

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

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Translation: I make up my own mechanics.

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.

[mick]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

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.

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 ?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by mick

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.