Well, I'd say that maybe 99% of the questions asked on this site could be looked up in the rule or case book, and probably should, but I enjoy this site to read those Q's, hear the veterans explanations or examples of what happened to them, read the small disagreements among us, and ultimately learn from these questions- to be a better official.
Many times these posts go in depth which helps explain the rules more then the (sometimes) brief wording in the books.
All officials know that they should constantly read said books, but it can be a hindrence if one asks a Q, and expecting a "veteran" to answer "look in the book". You could probably give an intelligent response in the time it took to type a flippant one. Our profession catches enough grief as it is. Help by mentoring on a small scale.
Ben Franklin said it best "We must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately".
And I mean no disrespect.

And that is why i stated that I meant no disrespect. But it is my opinion that an official who is working games should know what the mechanic is for illegal use of hands. The OP was stating that he was seeing officials using the FED prescribed mechanic for illegal use of hands and the OP didn't know what they were doing.

I was just putting it out there that officials should at least know the basics, and that includes the proper mechanics.

there is also nothing in rule or CB that states you should not verbalize when reporting - regardless of who you are reporting to. One might argue - "don't read into it so much" or "don't add your own interpretation to the rules" but since it doesn't say either way whether to verbalize or not it's just left up to each officials "judgement" I guess. ;) Go with whatever gives you a real warm fuzzy!

I don't have the mechanics book with me, but last ime I looked (about 6 years ago), it stated something like:

1) State the uniform color
2) State and signal the number
3) Signal the type of foul
4) State and point to the inbound spot, or state and indicate the number of FTs

It *was* clear that the foul type was to be given without verbalization.

I don't have a mechanics book from 6 years ago BUT when you state the uniform color (which we are not supposed do anymore where I work) and you state and signal the color - you are already "verbalizing". ;) :D

1) How do you indicate which team fouled if you don't state the color?

2) The issue isn't about all statements; it's specificallly about stating the foul type (e.g, do you say "hit" when giving the ilelgaluse of hands signal?) IOW, should my step 3 above be "signal the type of foul" (as I wrote) or "state and signal the type of foul" (as others seem to do). I know what it used to be; I know what it is here; I don't know what the "official" FED mechanic is.

1.We are told to just point to the team bench area
2. This is why I didn't totally disagree with you - in my area we have been told to verbalize the signal while we give it. However we are supposed to verbalize "correctly" ie a push not "over the back" etc. I have heard that this is done to help "educate" people in proper terminology to help get rid of misconceptions etc. Personal experience would indicate it has not been helping in this regard very much.

When in doubt, do it by the book. Coaches won't question the call if you give strong signals at the table anymore than if you verbalize "the story" there. I've seen lots of officials get themselves in trouble by verbalizing too much.

Unless you're in Illinois, or Texas, or New York, or. . . :D

Not everyone in your state points the the bench. This must be an association thing. Our association strongly frowns on it.

You can add Louisiana and North Dakota too. I know there are a couple of other examples, but you get the idea.

Peace

Tis why I said, "when in doubt." :D