______________
OK, who told you.? We want names... names I tell you. That traitor will pay!:p

I agree with Nevadaref. If I signal the attempt from my area, I also signal the successful goal.

Bottom line is, Trail always signals a successful 3. Lead also signals successful 3 if it originated in his/her PCA.

Now that makes sense to me. Why does the NFHS want the lead looking for the shot to go in on this one situation?

I do not know if this is just a NF thing. But who is going to know that the ball went in if the shot completely came from your area? The Trail is not watching because they are looking off ball. The bottom line is there are sacrifices you have to make. That is why there is a 3 Person system that is used at the higher levels.

Also the Lead watches the ball go in the basket even in 3 Person. So why is this difficult to do in 2 Person?

Peace

Not difficult. Just a surprising inconsistency in the "lead never watches the shot" philosophy. And as for seeing the shot, I've never not seen a three point shot from T. T had better know that the shot went up. He's got primary responsibility for GT/BI and significant responsibility for rebounding fouls. Or does the GT/BI responsibility shift to the L in this case too?

Thank you for your responses.
 

It's interesting - I think the responses in the poll mirror the percentages in the association. I think a lot of people were/are unaware that the Fed mechanic is: If you signal the attempt from your area, you signal the successful goal.

Just like anything in officiating you have to watch a couple of things at the same time. Now watching the shot go in does not mean you are so focused on the shot you forget other things. Also that does not mean you call a GT/BI call. But even as a Trail official, I might not watch the shot in a Two Person game. Once again, this is why there is a 3 Person system so official can focus on less things than in a 2 Person game where you have to try to watch many things and get all those plays right.

Peace

Like many have said, I always signal if it comes from my PCA.

That's one thing I can't understand. I agree completely with Crazy Voyager and with the FIBA referee manual (in this case, I should say :)).

The L has nothing to do with the shot, apart from telling the T that it was a 3 point attempt. Who's watching under the basket if the L is looking at the ball up in the air? And what's the point in mirroring the signal?

We want officials to try and avoid double signals, in order to minimize problems that can happen. Officials signal what is in their responsibility to call (or do no signal if there is nothing to call).

For example, I advise young officials not to signal a 2 point attempt: it's sufficient not to raise the arm. I believe this "signal" is of the same sort as the "tip" signal on a legal block. If the L doesn't raise the arm when there's a shot from his/her area, it means that the shot was a 2-point attempt. The T knows his/her partner is watching.

Ciao

In 2-man, if the 3 point attempt is in my primary area (probably in the corner), I'm giving the preliminary, staying with the shooter with the preliminary still in the air, once the shooter is back down and clear of any foul, I'm looking in. If the shot goes through, or already went through, I'm giving the "touchdown" signal.

So...a six point shot? :eek:

Yesterday, I made a post in this thread which corrected the poor grammar used by someone else in another post. One of the moderators then saw fit to delete that post. I did not include any insults of any kind. In fact, the only words which I wrote other than the corrections were, "Corrected poor grammar."
I am now expressing my opinion that such action amounts to censorship and favoritism. This is not the first time that a moderator has deleted my post after I corrected a spelling or grammar error of a certain poster. Since numerous posters have done this hundreds of times on this forum, I cannot come up with any other explanation. What this moderator is doing is showing favoritism to someone that he knows, and I have lost a great deal of respect for this person because of that. I just wanted everyone else to know.
***
I just read your deleted post.

Was it on topic? No.
Did it add to the value of the thread? No.
Was it inflammatory? It had potential.
Was favoritism involved? No.
I just wanted everyone else to know.
mick

Can I ask you for an honest answer? Are you pointing out the error in grammar for the sake of good grammar or because of your history with the poster?

Nevada, come on. You know that the sole intent of your post was to yank Jeff's chain, not to teach any damn grammar or spelling lesson. Don't whine when the mods are just doing their job.

Note that this is coming from probably the all-time leader of deleted posts on this forum too. The guys that moderate here have a tough job with all of the A-type personalities involved, but they still do their job very well imo.

I'll stand up and say that I was the one who deleted the post. And, one of the primary reasons was the history between the two posters involved. In my judgement, the post had the potential to lead to a needless flame war.

I'll also add that both posters involved had previously been warned to stop the senseless back-and-forth sniping and, when they failed to heed that warning, both were placed in time-out for a short period of time. That seemed to wrok for a while, but maybe it needs to be done again.

I just wanted everyone else to know.

(Brad will probably come along now and (appropriately) close / delete this thread, because it violates one of his rules )