Wow, Did I just see that!

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by chrs_schuster

Table asks what was the call?...

In my short career as an official, I have never had the table ask about the nature of the foul. They just care about the player color, number and communicate bonus situations.

[bob jenkins]

You can often learn as much by watching veterans "do it wrong" as you can by watching them "do it right."

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?

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Boris Karloff ???

more
Leslie Neilson

[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.

[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.

[ChrisSportsFan]

While I agree that it's best to use the given mechanics, as far as the table is concerned, it's a foul and they just need to put it in the book. I have yet to see a book with an area to specify what type of foul it was.

[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

[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?

[Mark Padgett]

Now that I think about it, a lot of my problems started after I used the "hit to the head" signal about 20 times in one game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

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?

I would question why you are calling a foul on the first one. There is always going to be some contact on a blocked shot. If it was clean first, let the other contact go. If the body contact took place first, then you can have a legitimate foul.

Just my take.

Peace

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?

Now, any answers to the 2 previous questions would be greatly appreciated. I just want to get it right...