Subs on an injury
 

A1 has possession of the ball and gets inadvertently poked in the eye. The referee does not call a foul but stops play when it is recognized that A1 is injured. Trainer/coaches do NOT come on the playing floor. Before play resumes players A6 and B6, who were at the table waiting to sub in, are allowed to sub for A2 and B1. Should these subs be allowed? A1 stays in the game.

There's a timeout. Why wouldn't they be allowed in? :confused:

Substitutions can be made anytime the clocked is stopped and the ball is dead. It makes no difference why the clock is stopped.

Thanks for the replies. The situation happend at an AAU game today in CT. The subs were allowed in. The refs then conferred for a moment. The subs were then removed from the game and the original players put back on the floor.Play resumed. I don't know why the refs did that. I looked in my IAABO rule book and could not find a reason not to allow the subs either.

IAABO has their own set of rules now?:confused:

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.

Might've been playing NCAA rules. . .

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.

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...:rolleyes:

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.

That's a very laudable goal. Of course, that's also exactly why the NFHS issues their own <b>OFFICIALS MANUAL</b> 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

1) Please elaborate. Exactly <b>how</b> 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.

Then what's the point in having it? :confused:

Well, from answers so far, IAABO reprints the NFHS rule and case books, but has their very own <b>"IAABO-specific"</b> 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 <b>same</b> as the FED Officials Manual, according to other posters.

Kinda confusing, ain't it?:confused:

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.

Not to be critical(nope, not me, never, nuh-huh...) but shouldn't that be <b>for</b> help?

Btw, I really do hope that your treatment takes this time.

then why not keep your piehole shut? never mind Not really. Deibler house specializes in helping others to maximize their govoning potential, not eliminating it.


http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...e_s_tongue.jpg

The purpose of my posts was not to get into an IAABO vs. NF debate. The NF clearly in my opinion does not talk in detail about many things. Even if the NF wants everyone to do something, they have clearly not done that in my opinion. This is why I can go to 5 different HS camps and get 5 different points of view. In many cases we just default to the CCA Mechanic book when we cannot agree on a specific philosophy. Or many read what Referee Magazine has put out to cover things like transition coverage and plays in the lane. Once again this is just an opinion and I was only taking on your assertion that the NF creates mechanics that everyone should follow.

Peace

Oh, OK. I thought that it might have been similar to that little problem that you had before, exposing yourself down at the mall. My mistake.

Nevermind.....

Yeah, that made the headlines but during the trial it was proven to be a case of mistaken identity. That got buried somewhere between the comics and the obituaries. Anyways...

Someone left a fire hose unrolled, you can understand how I got mistakenly involved.

Actually, that only comment that I wrote so far in this thread was that the FED's goal was to have a country-wide consistent set of mechanics. Apparently, if I'm reading the responses to-date correctly in this thread, both the FED and IAABO use the same mechanics. However, you are claiming that IAABO does a <b>better</b> job of teaching those mechanics, as well as having more/better training materials. All I'm trying to do is find out is exactly <b>HOW</b> IAABO is doing the better job that you claim they are doing and <b>what</b> those better training materials are.

I like to think that I have an open mind. If IAABO is doing something better in the training end that the FED is currently doing, as you claim, then I'm certainly not against looking at and evaluating what they're doing. The problem is that no one to date in this thread has been able to tell me exactly <b>what</b> IAABO is doing better or <b>how</b> they are doing their training better, other than a computer program that Skippy mentioned.

You mean the one from their Barbie doll house? :rolleyes:

The IAABO manual is illustrated using that computer program. That's about as detailed as I can get without actually showing you the manual. Send me a private message with your address and I'll mail one out to you.

:p <b> </b>

Better is subjective. The IAABO manual is in full color, with clear, easy-to-see diagrams of court coverage, primary areas, foul reporting, etc. The graphics come from ecourt, which is a DVD software tool that IAABO sells. The organization and typography is clearer and easier to read.

These are subjective judgments. I find it easier to read, easier to find a point, easier to review, easier to use to teach others. I don't think that the specific points covered are different .. although I find that the wording is simpler in the IAABO book. It uses bullet lists while the Fed uses paragraphs and lists.

Bottom line is that these are books -- not video tapes or live training. Anyone who learns mechanics only from a book is not going to be a very good official.

Ooooooo.......

You've seen those nude pictures of Dan that are out on the net, I take it.

You are a gentleman, a scholar, and a connoisseur of fine art. I'll certainly take you up on your generous offer.

As I said before, I ain't proud. anything that I can steal and use that's helpful......:)

JR,

I do not see you as really looking for the best material to train officials, if that was the case you would be talking more than what IAABO does compared to the NF. As a matter of fact you would not even be talking about the NF at all.

As stated before your assertion of what is the best or better is very subjective. After all we are talking about a book or manual. I did not learn how to officiate from a manual no more than I used how to use a computer. I would hope you could teach some concepts that are far beyond the book.

Peace

I realize that whatever is best or better is subjective. Unfortunately, I've also never stated in this thread which way of teaching mechanics is better or best. That's because I don't know. All I said was that the FED has a goal of having a country-wide set of standard mechanics. Apparently, IAABO has the same goal. Also apparently, the mechanics taught by both the FED and IAABO are also the same. At no time did I ever get into who I thought taught those country-wide mechanics mechanics better--IAABO or the FED. That would be you.

I'm simply trying to find out <b>your</b> subjective reasons for saying that IAABO generally teaches mechanics better than the FED. After that, I can try to make up my own mind. It's kinda tough to make a decision when you don't have any of the necessary data available. It then becomes a pure guess.

How can I talk about what IAABO does when I'm trying to find out what IAABO does? I don't have a clue what IAABO does. You're the one that must know what IAABO does because you stated that they did a much better job of teaching mechanics than the NF does. I simply asked you how and why IAABO was doing a better teaching job. What exactly is IAABO doing that is better? I'm still waiting for an answer. It's kinda tough for me to agree or disagree with you when you don't give any reasons out for your conclusion.

Soooooo......what exactly <b>does</b> IAABO do better then the NF when it comes to teaching mechanics? :confused:

I tried to answer your question earlier. See Post No. 40. (Quick summary: the IAABO manual has much better graphics in full color, is better written and its typography and design make it easier to read.)

If I could figure out how to post an image, I would show you a specific example from the IAABO manual and the Fed manual.

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!!!

that's a picture I really hope I can lose fairly soon!

PS I'm intrigued by your last post in the block charge thread, and I don't understand it. could you check back in there and just give an answer to my response?

Went back and changed it. Brain fart.

Hopefully those don't smell as bad as your other ones...

Help me decide. Which one you like better?

http://www.getafitbrain.com/brain_fart_hg_clr.gif

http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/d...df20050131.jpg

They actually breed us refs that way in IAABO states - makes it real easy to determine closely guarded.

Well, when you get old, you can tell your grandson to pull your medulla oblongata before you fart. After all, that is the hindmost part of your brain.

Yup.<i></i>

Depends on how you want to define hindmost. :)