New time out mechanic

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The last time I checked, NCAA-W Basketball does not have cheerleaders.

You haven't checked in a while, have you? I've been to several women's games that include cheerleaders. But college cheerleading squads are (usually) better trained and more skilled.

Originally Posted by mick

The mechanic says "the adminstering official may set the ball down".
It does not say *should set*, *must set*.

I'm with Rut. I won't do it.

Me neither. But I will go to where I am supposed to go.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

I agree. However, here you have a guy REFUSING to do it when he knows he should. It goes to state of mind and what ELSE he will refuse to do on the court - not call handchecking? Rough post play? It's a renegade mentality.

Renegade? You really get carried away, don't you? Not following a mechanic during a timeout isn't the end of civilization as we know it. It also doesn't really have dick-all to do with whether someone is a capable official or not.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Renegade? You really get carried away, don't you? Not following a mechanic during a timeout isn't the end of civilization as we know it. It also doesn't really have dick-all to do with whether someone is a capable official or not.

Again, I agree that it has little to do with knowledge of rules or application. It has a lot to do with judgment and professionalism. My opinion. I just wonder what else he "won't do" with the game on the line. That's all.

I think a lot of mechanics are stupid - but we do them because we are supposed to. Would you want a ref who won't switch properly and makes his partner do a long switch because he's inherently lazy (but a great caller)? Same mentality.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

It has a lot to do with judgment and professionalism. My opinion.

It has got absolutely dick-all to do with judgment and professionalism. My opinion.

What you're talking about is completely irrelevant when you're trying to determine whether someone is a capable, knowledgeable and proficient official. I've met and talked to a ton of evaluators/assignors and I've never met one that thought something as trivial as this was important. Yes, you might mention it to someone. But if they wander a bit for some reason, who cares? We care if they can do the job during the game.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It has got absolutely dick-all to do with judgment and professionalism. My opinion.

What you're talking about is completely irrelevant when you're trying to determine whether someone is a capable, knowledgeable and proficient official. I've met and talked to a ton of evaluators/assignors and I've never met one that thought something as trivial as this was important. Yes, you might mention it to someone. But if they wander a bit for some reason, who cares? We care if they can do the job during the game.

And what is that "job"? Is switching properly part of that job? Is using the correct foul mechanic? Is using a wrist flip on a FT? It all adds up is my point. Add to that a blatant statement that he REFUSES - well....

As a former HS varsity coach, if I was led to believe the ball was coming out under the basket when a mechanic was in place to specifically show me (and it used to be this way - not really new) and it came out on the sideline by halfcourt, and it cost me, I would have the refs head in a vice.

I respect your opinion. We just disagree.

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

And what is that "job"? Is switching properly part of that job? Is using the correct foul mechanic? Is using a wrist flip on a FT? It all adds up is my point. Add to that a blatant statement that he REFUSES - well....

As a former HS varsity coach, if I was led to believe the ball was coming out under the basket when a mechanic was in place to specifically show me (and it used to be this way - not really new) and it came out on the sideline by halfcourt, and it cost me, I would have the refs head in a vice.

I respect your opinion. We just disagree.

KSRef07,
Do you realize that you were talking about choosing to put the ball on the floor and, having abandoned that topic, you are now squeezing a partner's face?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Well, duh, if you are doing varsity and only 3-man, then it's a moot point. However, if you do subvarsity 2-man, and your partner goes to the correct spot and you don't, I guaranty the varsity refs watching your game (probably from halftime on), will notice it. Refs in the stands will notice it. If the scheduler is in the stands or some other rules official, he/she will notice it. And they will all start from that obvious flaw and search for more - and soon decide if they want to work with you or not.

Well considering that I am a varsity official, I bet you I will not lose my shirt because someone did not set the ball down.

Originally Posted by KSRef07

My thought on this is why kick advancement opportunity in the backside over an obvious mechanic. Let them downgrade you over not performing a "pinch in" move on a breakaway, but not THIS!

You keep talking about advancement as if someone will lose everything based on a single mechanic. I have yet to meet an official that goes through the exact process of calling a PC foul (or even a TC foul). And as a clinician, I will not go crazy over this mechanic and I have yet to hear anyone higher than me going crazy from what I understand. I might make them aware of the mechanic, but I am not going to hold someone back because of it. Maybe that is how it works around you, it does not work that way here.

Originally Posted by KSRef07

Plus, when your partner has the ball at the endline, go ahead and stand on the low block right by him then walk all the way up the court to signal first horn to the visiting team. That would look goofy to almost everyone.

But hey, it's your career! Stand up for your principles!

I think my career is quite alright. Thank you for the advice.

Peace

Originally Posted by mick

KSRef07,
Do you realize that you were talking about choosing to put the ball on the floor and, having abandoned that topic, you are now squeezing a partner's face?

No I was not. The original poster (see post #15) was talking about refusing to stand in the designated new spots in 2-man, AND also not putting the ball down. I agreed with not putting the ball down but not the other. Simple as that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You haven't checked in a while, have you? I've been to several women's games that include cheerleaders. But college cheerleading squads are (usually) better trained and more skilled.

They better be, someone has to watch something interesting during the games.

Peace

[mick]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

No I was not. The original poster (see post #15) was talking about refusing to stand in the designated new spots in 2-man, AND also not putting the ball down. I agreed with not putting the ball down but not the other. Simple as that.

I see.

[NathanRT]

Originally Posted by KSRef07

I think TX is missing a good thing. Under the new mechanic, coaches now know where the ball will be put in play and the ONE ref can control both benches easily, rather than having both refs bringing them out with different force. Also let's you start the RPP easier.

At our district meeting Ronnie Giraourd told us that although we are not using the new mechanic in TX, to indicate the spot, we will set the ball down on the floor at the spot. (I believe we'll still have it as an option...I don't like the idea and probably won't set the ball down. If the coach wants to know where the spot will be, he/she can ask like they do now and I'll be happy point and show them where it will be.)