2-person Long-Switching

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

You're contradicting yourself, slightly, without coming out and saying it.

And you're mis-answering my question. My question wasn't "Why should I do this in Fed-sanctioned games or in leagues/associations where strict Fed mechanics are to be used regarding switches?"

You're basically saying that you prefer it the other way, when conservation of energy is a factor.

Regular Season has ratings. AAU does not. Our association has us switch on all fouls. AAU is not governed by our association.

So....no contradiction at all. Plus, I don't do 3 or 4 games as a session during the regular season.

[Huntin' Ref]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Yes, it's completely ludicrous. It's as bad as someone who doesn't bump and run and watches his partner run the length of the court on a sideline throw-in.

I actually like don't mind a long switch when I'm the lead and I need to run the length of the floor. In our association, we switch partners/crews nightly and if I'm with an older partner I will make the long switch to help him save energy. Now, on a 3-person crew..........I hate long switches!

[Red_Killian]

I've always thought the rationale for switching after every foul was to prevent the calling official from having to make the same call, possibly on the same player, twice in a row or even 3 times if you never switch. By switching you will get the other official in the court area where the foul was just called. If both officials have the same call it's an easier sell than if it's the same official. Makes sense and works in 2-person but does not work in 3-person when you don't always switch. Court coverage areas are smaller in 3-person so maybe the powers to be did not feel it was as much an issue.

We are starting to work more 3-person high school games in my association and have many officials who also work 3-person college games but the idea of no long switch in 2-person has not come up. I have never had a partner try to pregame no long switch in 2-person.

[Larks]

My 2 man games....

No long switches....

Very few short switches -

Get the ball in play.

Oh - we also stay table side on free throws in trail too.

When my assignors found out, they decided to stop giving me two man games!

[Old School]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

So does anyone have any Fed insight into why these are still in place? Do we think these (or at least the no long switch) will be implemented into the Fed 2-person mechanics any time soon?

No!

The reason, since I have been following the NFHS rules and NCAA Men's. They seem to be the most reluctant to want to improve upon the system. Most senior officials who have been doing it a long time, ignore these dumb rules. The only people I see doing this is the new or young officials, wanting to do the 2-person switch at every foul. I feel you on the shooting foul called from Trail and after reporting you turn around and have to run down and administrator F/T's, dumb, dumb, dumb.....!!!!

Do I think they will ever change it? If they haven't by now, I don't think so. The NBA has it together when it comes to these type of things. You might find it enjoyable reading, reading their code because it answers a lot of questions in my mind as to why they change things that are different from the others. They are also more willing to listen to their officials and make changes when everyone is in agreement that it needs to change. NFHS and NCAA Men's don't listen to front line officials, and probably because there is just too many of us. Even with the rules they have in place now, there is not consistently across the nation. One thing for sure, there's not going to be any long switches in the games I do. Even if it's just one varsity game 2-person. No long switches.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

1. Does everyone out there run the full length of the court after you call a bonus foul in the backcourt to report and then become new lead, administering the subsequent free-throws?

2. Am I the only one who thinks this is ludicrous?

1. Yes, always

2. I have found quite a few rules and articles ludicrous.

[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?

[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)

[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.

[Junker]

My partner in a 2 man freshman/JV double header last night asked a similar question. I told him we do not long switch. I learned never to do it in either 2 or 3.

[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....

[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.

[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

[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.