2-person Long-Switching
 

Am I the only person who doesn't do this? The association I first learned in taught NO long-switching in 2-person, which, at the time, was an advanced carry-over from 3-person mechanics, I suppose. (We also taught calling official stayed as the outside official, if they called from there - I'm still having trouble with this from time to time.)

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?

Am I the only one who thinks this is ludicrous? I actually thought I had some NFHS material on this, but I thoroughly went through all of my saved Fed yearly PPT updates (only back through 03-04), and I have nothing of the sort.

Since two person mechanics call for switching on all fouls, I don't find this at all ludicrous. In AAU, when doing 3 or 4 games, I stay trail if I make the call, to conserve energy. But not during the season.

You may not like it, but switching on ALL fouls is the correct NFHS mechanic for 2-person.

What you did previously with your first association was an alteration of the actual correct procedure.

Why won't someone answer his actual question?

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.

You don't find anything ludicrous if it's what the book says?

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.

I know - totally bizarre. It's one of those things where, despite the fact that I've read the most recent Official's Manual multiple times, and I possess the 04-05 NFHS PowerPoint update (which only discusses long-switching in 3-person), I was certain in my head that it was a Fed mechanic.

I guess I'll start this question in the same thread now, just to see if it's been discussed before (I can't find anything in thread-searching): What is the logic behind this, when it is not the mechanic in 3-person? I'm not just complaining, as it may sound (and I am complaining, don't get me wrong) - I'm truly interested in why :mad: this has not been changed, when it is different in 3-person.

YEEEEEEEEEES.:mad: Want to come work with me in sunny California every Tuesday and Friday, Rich?

I can't stand this.

Yes it's ludicrous.

When I work HS 2 whistle games I pregame no long switch. If my partner gets nervous and insists on the long switch I'll say sure, fine, but be ready for me to forget every now and then.

It always works out, I've never had to T a coach because he jumped up and screamed "You guys missed that one AND you didn't long switch!!!"

:rolleyes:

See, that's the thing - I just started (this season) running into partners who will basically refuse to do it because "that's not how they want us to do it here" - for fear of being dinged while evaluated (keep in mind, these are people that are not going to be working any post-season games, by a long-shot). Then when it happens, it throws me off. It's my shortcoming, I realize, when I let it stump me, more or less, and I'm overcoming it, but I'm not going to start liking it, nor stop trying to get partners to NOT do it.

Edited to include - I've NEVER been dinged for this in two-person game evaluations, either, anywhere I've worked.

I find the first time they jog down court after reporting a foul in the back court and run into me already at new lead they get the message.

"I told you I would forget and I aint running back down there now."

If I have the foul it's no big deal to see them coming to replace me so I just keep going down court.

Yeah, and it's mostly the guys afraid of getting dinged...

Them: "so let's pregame where we stand during time outs"
Me: "Nah, let's pregame basketball instead."

Not like the rules.
 

We must understand that mechanics are not like rules. The Mechanics books are guides for basic procedures. If your state or area wants to change them, they can do that. For example our state does not want us to bounce the ball from the Lead or New Trail positions to the thrower. In the NF mechanics I believe there is an option. So if your state does not want to switch on all fouls, then that might be something your state would mandate. If you have no specific procedure from the NF, then you can do what you think is best. Not all issues are listed in the NF Official's Manual. I do not even think the "bump and run" is advocated. At least when I started it was not but it was a very common mechanic we used.

BTW Basketball is the only sport we follow the mechanics book in my state pretty much to the letter out of the three sports I work. In Football and Baseball most of what the NF puts in those manuals does not apply to us. And these are two sports we have NF Committee members directly from the IHSA office. So that should tell you how important those books are to the NF.

Peace

In Iowa and here in Colorado, virtually all my experienced partners specifically pregamed not to do long switches. Most of them won't even switch all the time when they call a foul as T in the front court unless we get a couple in a row. Call it, report it, and get the ball in play immediately seems to be the mantra around here.
With the new guys, I'm just happy to have them in the right spot during a live ball.

As somebody smarter than me pointed out, the biggest potential problem with the long switch is that while you and your partner are still hanging out at this end of the floor (he reporting, you preparing to inbound), the other eight guys are all heading up the floor with inadequate supervision. And since something physical just happened to necessitate calling the foul, there's always the chance that somebody will retaliate. If they do, where are you? Standing in backcourt, nowhere nearby.

So I pregame to not do the long switch, at least not if play will resume with a throw-in. I also pregame that we don't switch if the trail calls a foul in the frontcourt such that he can turn, report, and inbounds the ball all from right where he's at.

Now that's just silly. Why would we do that, when we...do that...in.....3-person.....Other than the long switch, the thing I despise the most is calling a foul as tableside trail in the FC, turning and reporting, turning around, and having my partner stand halfway up the paint, holding the ball in a way that implies I need to get over there and take it from him. (Sarcasm on) Yeah, I know - let's hold up the game another 5-7 seconds for....I'm sure some good reason, and look just plain goofy and like we're arbitrarily switching places while NO ONE else on the court is even moving. Yeah. Seems like we should keep that one around for a while, even though we don't do anything resembling it anymore in 3-person. (Sarcasm off)

I was taught these same things when I started. I know an official from Georgia who was taught the same things as the norm, so I know it's not just an Iowa thing.

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?

And thank you, all, for making me feel more sane.

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.

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! :eek:

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.

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. :eek:

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

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.

1. Yes, always

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

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.

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?

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)

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.

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.

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....

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 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

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.

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.