I now have an IAABO manual. The graphics are a little better. I don't generally agree though that, overall, it is better-written and and the typography/design makes it easier to read too. The basic content is still the same in both of them.

Can you give some explicit examples between the two that I can compare?

Btw, manuals don't teach. Teachers teach from manuals. If IAABO/NFHS mechanics are the same, what are IABBO clinicians generally doing better than NFHS clinicians when it comes to teaching those identical mechanics? They're both teaching using the same material, right? That's what I'm trying to find out.

Why are you so stuck on the IAABO thing? I am not qualified to talk about all the things IAABO does. I just have seen some material that goes beyond what the NF does from IAABO. If you are really interested in training material you need to purchase the stuff from the NF which is far and beyond the best when it comes to any mechanics the NF is involved in. But anytime someone brings up NASO or Referee Magazine to you start talking about the mistakes the magazine makes. Either way it goes if you are really looking for good materials you will have to go beyond the NF and their Officials Manuals.

Peace

Don't go Old School on me. If you have the IAABO manual, you don't need me to compare sections side-by-side.

I don't know -- and I would never make such a blanket statement. I belong to an IAABO board, so I can only tell you about my experience.

I have seen both manuals. I believe the IAABO one is better for the reasons I stated. But, that is a subjective judgment.

WOW!! All of these posts about IAABO. I do not believe it. Keep up the good work.

MTD, Sr.

Now you have to admit that was funny. :D

Peace

I just deleted my original response to you about this, and also my response to Rut's subsequent post. Neither response of mine would have done anybody else on this forum any good, even though I might personally have felt better.

I'm done.

JR, it's quite possible that today the mechanic differences between IAABO and the FED are minuscule and might seem redundant to those outside of IAABO land.

However I conjecture that is was not always this way. I believe that IAABO as an organization of some sort has been around for some time, I believe 1923 or so. It's primary goal is to establish consistency from area to area as it relates to basketball mechanics. Most of us can agree that is a good thing.

We've all talked about from time to time how "back in the day" things were a crap shoot mechanically. I doubt that the FED was always so organized when it came to officials mechanics, however in this day and age with technology and information being instantaneous has made it much easier for the FED to standardize "their" mechanics and get that standardization out to local official's associations and as such another organization that would try to start up today to duplicate what IAABO is and does wouldn't make any sense.

However, IAABO's historical standing in the officiating community allows it to continue to be an effective educational element in today's officiating world.

I was a member of IAABO back in the day. Back in the day when you had to be an official for 5 years and have someone recommend you also before you could join an IAABO board. Back in the day when I had to drive 60 miles to write a proctored IAABO exam and get 88% on it to be eligible to join. Back in the day when writing and passing that exam was mandatory every year to remain an IAABO member. Back in the day when you really had to work at officiating to become an IAABO member. Iow, I really don't think that I need you to tell me anything about IAABO history. I was an IAABO member for 25 or so years, starting out in the mid-60's.

Back in the day, we never had a standard mechanics manual. We were issued bulletins, etc. from the NFHS. The NFHS then developed and issued an officials manual. They did so with the goal of establishing consistency from state to state in all facets of basketball officiating, a goal that you somehow transfered above to IAABO. IAABO had absolutely nothing to do with the writing and issuance of that manual afaik; the IAABO manual came much later and is basically a re-write of the standard FED manual. It is true that some IAABO members helped with the mechanics standardization, but they did not do so under the guidance or leadership of IAABO. They did so as informed and very competent individuals. To infer that IAABO was a leader when it came to the development of mechanics though is ludicrous. I know different. I was there- back in the day. And btw, yes, the IAABO mechanics manual is completely redundant imo. I suspect that it is issued solely with the idea of making money for IAABO.

I gave up my IAABO membership when IAABO became irrelevant to me personally and there was no longer any real benefit in remaining a member. It's an officials organization, no different than many existing state associations. It's also no better or worse at doing it's job than most state associations. It follows the NFHS lead, not vice-versa. The only prerequisite to join IAABO now is the ability to cloud a mirror.

I have absolutely nothing against IAABO either. It does a fine job for it's members in the few places where it is recognized as a state governing body, mainly in the north-east USA. In most of the country though, and to most of the country, IAABO is irrelevant. It's goals are certainly laudatory also, but they are not inclusive as solely being IAABO goals. IAABO includes many distinguished officials as members who have contributed greatly to officiating knowledge. That's a fact. I do have a problem with people that think that IAABO(or NASO/Referee mag) has anything official at all to do with NFHS rules or mechanics. They don't. They can issue their own <b>opinions</b>, but that doesn't mean that any of their <b>opinions</b> are valid or germane, except in a case where they actually might be working as a state governing body. And even in those cases, they are not allowed to change or over-rule any previous FED rulings. IAABO is an aid, not a source.

I asked some specific questions about IAABO above in this thread. I failed to receive answers that were relevant in any way to the questions that I asked. That's telling as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not going to get into a flame war about it.

I had no intentions of trying to give you a personal history lesson, only adding to the discussion. I usually respect what you have to say in general if nothing else based on your experience (lord knows you have it :D

However to take fours benign words with no intent whatsoever and twist them to make it look like a personal attack on you, that's telling as far as I'm concerned as well.

Well, I have to admit that you didn't try to compare me to Old School in lieu of answering a question. That I certainly do appreciate.:) As I said yesterday, I have no intention of getting into a flame war in this thread, with you or anyone else.

I was only trying to add to the discussion also. And what is also telling is you didn't try to refute anything that I said.

I still have some questions about IAABO training but I'm trying to get answers from....well, the horse's mouth.

But they also have members like that Chuck Elias guy, wherever he is nowadays. :confused:

In fact, there's been some discussion of changing the IAABO logo:
http://fark.pbwiki.com/f/Squirrel-Original.jpg

I thought that was the centerfold in the IAABO handbook.

If it isn't, it should be.:D

Nope...that was me.

JR...I tried to answer your questions...directly and honestly. I described the differences in the manuals -- and made very clear that I could not describe differences in the teaching, since I do not have personal knowledge of anything other than IAABO teaching. You said you had the IAABO manual and then asked me to provide explicit examples to differantiate between the two. I could have done that. Instead...I made a joke. That's all it was.

I now see that you have no sense of humor. (Hey...Rut saw it was a joke.) That's OK...I usually do not either. My dry, sardonic wit did not come across in the cold type of the message board. That is actually the distinction I was making between the NFHS mechanics manual and the IAABO mechanics manual. One is cold, black-and-white, dense. The other is full color, modern typography, easy to read. As I said in my original post...those are (mostly) subjective judgments. But I believe they are accurate.

Most of us have no choice in the manuals we use. If you belong to an IAABO board, you get the IAABO manual. If you don't, you get the NFHS manual.

Neither is as good as I would like. I am not a college official, but I have read the NCAA manual and NCAA rules interpretations and advisories. I find them far more lucid and better written than anything from the NFHS or IAABO. Rather than dicker over which high school manual is better, I would prefer that we push the NFHS to try to match the NCAA for clarity.

Two pictures worth 2,000 words?
 

Thanks to those who showed me how to get these images off my computer:

Here is an example of why I say the IAABO mechanics manual is "better." This is a comparison of the two manuals....just one graphic showing court coverage in rebounding situations.

I say that the IAABO manual is clearer, better shows where each official is supposed to be and what each official is supposed to watch. This is only one graphic. But the entire manual is like this. If you like watching sports on a black and white 12-inch tube....that is fine. I will take the 40-inch high-def plasma. We get the same information....but I find it much easier to digest and understand on the big screen.

http://aycu21.webshots.com/image/172...6608825_rs.jpg

http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/177...0371629_rs.jpg

OK, so the IAABO version is prettier...more color, shows the chairs, shows people-like figures. Still, it doesn't provide any more information or the same information in a fundamentally different way....just prettier.


Plus, those ref's are HUGE...shoulder width's approaching 6 feet. WOW!!!