IAABO has more training materials on mechanics just as my state association does as well. I think it is sad when Referee Magazine can put out a publication that does a better job of explaining your mechanics in an "official" publication. My state is going to stop using the NF Officials Manuals all together by next year. The information is almost never updated and there are hardly ever case plays or situations covered that would tie in loose ends.

Rotations are not covered very well or the philosophy behind them. If you just read the book all you know is you move when the ball is on one side. You have no idea when it is likely appropriate and why you are actually rotation. There is just token reference and the rest seems to be left to the imagination. Most of the philosophies

Then when it comes to foul reporting, there is very little as to how to do it. Of course there is a description of the steps, but there is not a single visual as to proper technique or what clearly should not be done.

The NF does a great job with their Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook and they make the Officials Manual into a bunch of words that have to be interpreted by clinicians and state associations to come up with proper training techniques to make the average official understand. What our state does with PowerPoint Presentations and camp literature is much better than what the NF puts out. Even the mechanics software the NF put out is extremely generic and simple.

Peace

The point is that IAABO doesn't have to pay NFHS to use it.

The mechanics are the same, but the presentation is much better in the IAABO manual. Illustrated, and much easier to understand.

1) What additional training materials does IAABO have and how are these training materials different than the FED Manual?

2)What is the IAABO alternative that they recommend and use for better rotations?

3) What is the IAABO-specific way to report fouls and how/why is this better than the FED way?

Just trying to learn.......

Examples? How is the presentation better, and in what ways? What is easier to understand and why is it easier to understand?

What differences does the IAABO manual have re: illustrations that the FED Manual and Illustrated book don't have?

What does this mean?

Let me make something very clear. My statements were not just about IAABO. My statements were to counter-act the statements you made is if IAABO or any organization could not use alternate training materials as it relates to what the NF puts in the Officials Manual. I am not an IAABO member or have any ties to IAABO directly. In my area you can join IAABO through some local associations, but membership really does nothing for you but to receive extra training material and to say you are a member if you decide to move to an IAABO organization in the eastern part of this country. I guess you will not lose some standing if you have membership and transfer to another area.

I do know that IAABO has put out literature that goes beyond the NF and this is not a very hard thing to do. I believe IAABO was the first to have a software program that put 2 and 3 person mechanics in detail. Also I have read some literature on philosophies with mechanics and other officiating things you never see from the NF.

Also my state has been one of the leads on training of officials with camps and video clips. As a matter of fact our state was approached by many other state officiating departments to get in on what we have been doing the past few years with video and PowerPoint presentations. Now there is an official's consortium of about 7 states where video clips will be available to be used for training purposes. So a clinician (president, trainer or just an average official) in my state can click on a clip from Indiana and use the clip in a presentation to train officials. My understanding the NF and even Referee Magazine are trying to get in on this and have approached our state representatives that run official's training.

I am not here to debate IAABO or what IAABO does as a whole. It also must be pointed out that the NF in the past has not expected 100% uniformity throughout their mechanics. Mary Struckoff (NF Basketball Rulebook Editor and NCAA Women's Coordinator) has made that clear when I personally asked her this question about 2 years ago when she spoke at the IHSA Official's Conference. She made it very clear that states can come up with their state mechanics and modify what the NF does. I have said this before and I am saying it now.

Peace

IAABO uses a computer program called "E-Court", which generates pictures of a basketball court and allows you to place officials where you want them, highlight areas of coverage, show the progression of a sequence of steps. It's presented more visually, instead of what I remember to be more text-based in the NFHS manual. Much easier to "see" what they're saying than in the NFHS book.

Yeah, that was way too vague. Sorry. I was referring to the NCAA rules regarding substitutions during the last minute of regulation or an OT period. There are times when subs aren't allowed, even if the official has stopped the clock. In NCAA-W, it's spelled out even more clearly than on the men's side.

That's what I thought you were after.

If it was a game under NCAA-M rules the sub would be allowed in. When subs *cannot* enter is spelled out exactly under Rule 3 of both rules sets:

Art. 7. (Men) Substitution shall not be allowed when the game is stopped in the last 59.9 seconds of the second half or any extra period to correct a timing mistake or for an inadvertent whistle.

Art. 7. (Women) Substitutions shall not be allowed when the game is stopped in the last 59.9 seconds of the second half or any extra period for anything other than a timeout, a violation or a foul.

(You been getting your NCAA interpretations from Nevada?)

1) Whoa. I'm just trying to find out exactly what the differences are between the IAABO and NFHS manuals. So far I've received answers ranging from "none" to "the mechanics are the same but the presentation is better". Now you said...
a) <i>"I may not agree with everything that IAABO does, but they do a better job than what the NF does as it relates to mechanics or teaching the mechanics"</i>, and..
b) <i>"IAABO has more training materials on mechanics just as my state association does as well'.</i>
Those are pretty definitive statements coming from you about mechanics, and they seem to be very IAABO-specific also. All I'm trying to find out is what basis you used for those definitive statements. Again, exactly what is IAABO doing and teaching that makes them better at teaching mechanics than what the FED is currently doing?

2) What literature has IAABO put out that goes beyond what the FED is doing, and exactly what is in that literature that that makes it better than the FED manual? Examples, please.

3) Um, I'm still confused. Isn't that why you posted? Didn't you want to debate that the IAABO manual was better than the FED manual? I'm just trying to find out "how" and "why" it is better. If I can find something that might be helpful for my own Association's training, I'm sureashell not above stealing it. Before I can even think about whether stealing it is worthwhile though, I have to find out exactly what the differences are and why the IAABO approach is better than the FED's.

OK.

Now the FED also puts out their own computer program for Athletic Rules Study. They also have on-line stuff available for both "Officiating Procedures" and "Officiating Basketball Methods".
http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/08/offi...education.aspx
They also have mechanics and other training videos available iirc.
How is the IAABO stuff better, more-complete, etc. than what the FED is putting out? What are the differences and <b>why</b> are those differences better?

http://www.kiddyhouse.com/Songs/alpha/popcorn.gif

Someone IM Matt Damon and see what he thinks

His mind's gone, probably from too much govoning.

I'm going into the Jon Deibler Govoning Rehab Facility to help with my problem.