Please Help...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Play dictates the need for the Lead to move across the paint. The C, in a lot of cases, doesn't know enough to back out and the Trail is too scared to move down. Why? Because when the ball changes possession the Lead must move back to table side to become new trail, the C is in the Cadillac position and can chill and the old Trail - who would normally now be the C - is now the new Lead.

I realize this is different from the "flex" in NFHS and NCAA, but what's so bad about it really? As long as the Lead comes ballside when necessary and goes back when the ball transitions, is it that big a deal if the C slides 8 feet toward the division line? The one obvious advantage of that system is that there are no missed rotations -- because there are no rotations. You never end up with 2 Leads; or worse, no Leads.

At least with the NCAA change we will not have to adapt to going across from the table any more on foul calls.

I was led to believe that the NCAA is going back to having the calling official go opposite the table. I was told that the supervisors think there's way too much conversation after foul calls. I could be wrong, but I think it's coming.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I was led to believe that the NCAA is going back to having the calling official go opposite the table. I was told that the supervisors think there's way too much b!tching after foul calls. I could be wrong, but I think it's coming.

Fixed it for ya.......

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fixed it for ya.......

Nope. You missed it. The problem is not the b!tching. The problem is officials who feel compelled to carry on a conversation, instead of giving an explanation and then ending the discussion. The supervisors are not concerned about the coaches, according to what I've been told; they're displeased with the officials.

Granted, I've heard this 14th-hand. But I think my "source" is probably right.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Nope. You missed it. The problem is not the b!tching. The problem is officials who feel compelled to carry on a conversation, instead of giving an explanation and then ending the discussion. The supervisors are not concerned about the coaches, according to what I've been told; they're displeased with the officials.

Are you serious? Do you really mean that some conference officials are ignoring direct requests from their supervisors to STFU a little? And instead of the supervisors confronting their problem and getting their officials to tone down their rhetoric a l'il bit, they're gonna change mechanics(again) instead?

Whatever happened to all of the idealistic justification when they implemented the calling official staying table-side? You know...the goal of increased and better communication resulting in coaches and officials running hand-in-hand together through a flower-strewn meadow? That's all gonna be dead now?

Methinks it might be a management problem instead of a mechanics problem.

JMHO.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

instead of the supervisors confronting their problem and getting their officials to tone down their rhetoric a l'il bit, they're gonna change mechanics(again) instead?

I'm just telling you what I've been told. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I'm just telling you what I've been told. Don't shoot the messenger.

Gee, I'd never do sumthin' like that.....

What are your thoughts though about what you've been told? Is it really a mechanics problem or is it supervisors being afraid to tell their big dawgs what to do? I'm assuming that their little dawgs( new members on staff, etc.) would listen to 'em with the appropriate respect and awe.

Of course though, how do you really explain to someone just exactly when their coach/official conversation is being dragged out too long?