Subs on an injury

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eyezen

No they do not.

IAABO prints a bound book that contains amongst IAABO specific material, an official reproduction of the NHFS rules book, an official reproduction of the NFHS case book, and an IAABO Official's Manual for Crews of Two and Three.

Oh, OK. They don't have their own rules, but they have their very own mechanics.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh, OK. They don't have their own rules, but they have their very own mechanics.

For the past two school years, IAABO printed its own two-persons mechanics book. The only difference between IAABO and NFHS was the timeout positioning of the officials; IAABO still had the administering official go to the spot of the throw-in and the non-administering officials going to the division line. But the NFHS is going back to that position this year.

MTD, Sr.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Oh, OK. They don't have their own rules, but they have their very own mechanics.

Yes the mechanic differences between FED and IAABO are so drastic that I pray for OT just so I can hope to feel comfortable with the different mechanics by the end of a game when working a non IAABO assigned game in my area...

Look, the differences between IAABO mechanics and FED mechanics are so minuscule that to lament IAABO for having their own mechanics is pure hubris.

In fact one could argue that the mechanical differences found state to state or even region to region are more than the differences found between IAABO and "pure" FED.

The only mechanical difference that I can recall was the 2 man time out procedure, which incidentally the FED changed back to the "IAABO" way.

The entire philosophy behind IAABO is to have a consistent set of mechanics no matter where you are, which I would think you would agree is a laudable goal.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by eyezen

The entire philosophy behind IAABO is to have a consistent set of mechanics no matter where you are, which I would think you would agree is a laudable goal.

That's a very laudable goal. Of course, that's also exactly why the NFHS issues their own OFFICIALS MANUAL every two years. It's too bad that certain officials groups won't participate in the FED's goal of having a country-wide consistent set of mechanics.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's a very laudable goal. Of course, that's also exactly why the NFHS issues their own OFFICIALS MANUAL every two years. It's too bad that certain officials groups won't participate in the FED's goal of having a country-wide consistent set of mechanics.

Actually it is not too bad. The NF does not expect all their mechanics to be followed and frankly if NF did have such an expectation (which they do not by the way) they need to be more detailed. 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 and teaching those mechanics. Too much of the NF Officials Manual is subject for interpretation and does not cover loose ends. I realize that you think the NF is God and they cannot do anything wrong, but if the NF wants things to be followed better, they need to do a better job with that manual you seem to love so much.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

1) 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 and teaching those mechanics.

2) Too much of the NF Officials Manual is subject for interpretation and does not cover loose ends

1) Please elaborate. Exactly how does IAABO do a better job teaching mechanics? What exactly do they do differently and better than, say, my association who uses the OFFICIALS MANUAL?

2) Examples of those loose ends, please, to back that statement up. Also let me know how IAABO covers those same loose ends.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Please elaborate. Exactly how does IAABO do a better job teaching mechanics? What exactly do they do differently and better than, say, my association who uses the OFFICIALS MANUAL?

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) Examples of those loose ends, please, to back that statement up. Also let me know how IAABO covers those same 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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by eyezen

Look, the differences between IAABO mechanics and FED mechanics are so minuscule that to lament IAABO for having their own mechanics is pure hubris.

Then what's the point in having it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then what's the point in having it?

Well, from answers so far, IAABO reprints the NFHS rule and case books, but has their very own "IAABO-specific" mechanics manual. Also apparently IAABO has their own IAABO-specific mechanics manual because IAABO "does a better job than what the NF does as it relates to mechanics and teaching those mechanics".

But.... the IAABO mechanics book is now basically exactly the same as the FED Officials Manual, according to other posters.

Kinda confusing, ain't it?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

But.... the IAABO mechanics book is now basically exactly the same as the FED Officials Manual, according to other posters.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Then what's the point in having it?

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