Wow, Did I just see that!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by grunewar

"hit to the head signal." Book person, who knows I'm a ref asked me, "What's that?"

I realize that it's not an approved signal, but how could somebody not know what it means? Somebody got hit in the head. It's one of the most common-sense signals out there because it shows what the person actually did.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize that it's not an approved signal, but how could somebody not know what it means? Somebody got hit in the head. It's one of the most common-sense signals out there because it shows what the person actually did.

It's an NCAAW mechanic. Keep it at that level.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It's an NCAAW mechanic. Keep it at that level.

Nevada - I understand that it's not approved at the HS level, but doesn't it communicate to all exactly where the player was hit?

What are your thoughts about using it as a prelim at the spot, then using the approved signal while reporting?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Nevada - I understand that it's not approved at the HS level, but doesn't it communicate to all exactly where the player was hit?

What are your thoughts about using it as a prelim at the spot, then using the approved signal while reporting?

I would use the approved signal at both spots.

If the coach questions the foul , I would (or might) use the "hit to the head" signal as part of my explanation.

[jkumpire]

First, I agree that FED signals need to be used, and done in a clear and distinct manner.

However, the FED Rules Committee is wrong when it says: "Officials should be professional in the use of the signals and should not attempt to draw attention to themselves by use of unapproved, emphatic or theatrical signals."

The use of such pejorative language reveals something that I really don't like. FED wants everyone to be an ASA softball umpire, to call everything exactly alike, and do everything exactly alike. And there are times in a basketball game where using an added signal in addition to the FED signal is not being a hot dog, or unprofessional.

For example, the other day I was lead in a 2 man game. A1 is driving down the lane, and B1 sticks his forearm out, and holds him from driving down the lane. The way the players were going nobody on either bench could see the call, or why I called it.

So I come to the reporting area, use one hand for the player number and reported "24 white",then using the exact FED signal "holding." Then I pointed in the direction of play after the foul. Already the defensive coach is up looking at me because he didn't see his player's forearm across the midsection of A1. So I then put my forearm out, motioned it away from my body like a FB ref calling illegal motion, and said "24 held 13 with his forearm on the drive."

B1's coach sat down, didn't say a word. Why? Because I used an "unapproved" signal to communicate what the foul clearly was to the coach. I sold the call using a signal not in the book. He may not like my call, but he knew what it was, and didn't make a scene about it.

And yes, I am an older person, and I have called basketball for a long time. But communication is a key to officiating well, and IMO if you have to use an unorthodox signal once in a while, great.

Being a by the book official on mechanics is what we should strive for, and I practice my mechanics regularly to make sure I give good, crisp signals. But to automatically say that any time an unorthodox signal is used is bad, that is just incorrect.

And to label an official using a signal not in the book as as a show off or trying to bring attention to themselves is to attack their integrity, and is very questionable. This is the mindset that leads to state associations trying to legislate no booing at HS sporting events, or mandating that officials police the post-game handshake after a game.

[referee99]

So, what you did was report the foul using prescribed mechanics, and then answered a coach's question with bonus clarity indication.

I would do the same. This is good officiating.

Also, at the spot of the foul, I'm using prescribed mechanics, but may answer question from player with a gesture. Had a kid make a clean block up top, but contact shooter with his chest. Called a push at the spot, and answered kids question with a tap to the chest (mine) as I go to report.

Originally Posted by referee99

Had a kid make a clean block up top, but contact shooter with his chest. Called a push at the spot, and answered kids question with a tap to the chest (mine) as I go to report.

Couple of questions (for the board):

1. Clean block up top with body contact, should that be reported as a "push" or "block" accompanied by the verbal "BODY" to sell the call?

2. Should we give the kid the finger (STOP it) the wait-a-minute finger, go report then come back to explain?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you do not know what the signal is (and this is hard to understand), how are you so sure that you know what a foul is? The foul is whatever you want it to be based on the action. There is no "it must be this way or else" foul signal.

Excellent, but you really could've said THAT 16 posts & a whole page ago

Man it's almost been a year since we got down like this, but here we go again. And this time I just asked a question... oh wait a minute, that's what I did before too

This is what raised my concerns:

Originally Posted by referee99

Also, at the spot of the foul, I'm using prescribed mechanics,
but may answer question from player with a gesture. Had a kid make a
clean block up top, but contact shooter with his chest.
Called a push at the spot, and
answered kids question with a tap to the chest (mine)
as I go to report.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Nevada - I understand that it's not approved at the HS level, but doesn't it communicate to all exactly where the player was hit?

What are your thoughts about using it as a prelim at the spot, then using the approved signal while reporting?

See post #11.

Gotcha, I'll combine #11 & #20 when/if neccessary.

[Y2Koach]

Mechanics and communication can definitely make a difference. I was scouting a game the other night and team A's best player A3 had 2 player control fouls and an "over the back" pushing foul on a rebound in the first half. Being a stickler for mechanics and a fan of officiating.com (!), i noticed immediately that the officials were very sloppy with their mechanics and communication with the table. Lo and behold, at the beginning of the second half, coach B is telling his guys to "attack A3, he's got 3 fouls". On a B3 drive to the basket, A3 hacks B3 on the arm and a foul is called. When coach A asks the home (B) scorekeeper if A3 has 4, scorekeeper responds "thats his first foul coach". B3 goes ape $h!t, there's a 10 minute delay in the game trying to sort everything out. The official is condescendingly admonishing the young lady keeping the book. I guess the young lady had enough of the attitude from the official and says "you never said foul, you just punched and said a number, how am i supposed to know those are fouls? Aren't you supposed to come close to the table and tell me it's a foul?" They finally sorted it out, but it was just a mess that probably could have been avoided.

[shishstripes]

One of my favorite officials growing up when calling a PC from the lead would do a hop, skip, and a crow hop off the end-line probably moving 20 feet up the floor in the process. Some might call it selling his call rather than theatrics.

If a coach asked me why I wasn't calling "over the back" like this official in the OP, I might just reply, "I am calling the contact on the rebound when it occurs."

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize that it's not an approved signal, but how could somebody not know what it means? Somebody got hit in the head. It's one of the most common-sense signals out there because it shows what the person actually did.

So, are you saying when one player trips another player it's also ok to use the non-existent "trip signal" instead of the block because "it shows what the person actually did." I'm not that seasoned an official and just not comfortable using mechanics that aren't in the book. JMO

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by grunewar

...just not comfortable using mechanics that aren't in the book. JMO

And that's the key...if you are comfortable with it. I use unapproved signals from time-to-time. I have a supervisor who tells us he likes to see some personality on the floor.

Once you have a established that you get plays right, know the rules, can communicate with coaches, and can handle situations on the court your mechanics get less scrutinized. Just ask Ed Hightower.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I concur JRut, let me re-word that so I don't sound like a complete moron

1. Clean block up top with simultaneous body contact that is say, 60/40 or 55/45, should that be reported as a "push" or "block" accompanied by the verbal "BODY" to sell the call?
...

Having to sell a call is often a indication that we may have got it wrong. In this case I would have a push mechanic on the spot and at the table. I might explain (not sell) if the coach asked.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And that's the key...if you are comfortable with it. I use unapproved signals from time-to-time. I have a supervisor who tells us he likes to see some personality on the floor.

Once you have a established that you get plays right, know the rules, can communicate with coaches, and can handle situations on the court your mechanics get less scrutinized.

Wait, I feel another NFHS Mechanics Manual quote coming up.