Proper, yes. Stupid, too.

I worked with a guy who moved in from a state where there was a big emphasis on the reporting area and switching. So, after a rebound, he had a foul. He came all the way to center court, reported, and then I had to run half a court length to administer the throw-in and he had to cross the court to become the lead.

My regular partners would call the foul, clear the players, report the foul, slide right back (just like 3-person). I wouldn't move a step. Which movement makes more sense and allows for a better observing of players during the process?

I pre-game this with veterans.
 

In FED mechanics, each official administers their line in the front court. The ball went OOB on his line he administers. If below the FT line he stays the lead. If above the FT line he would become new trail. This is FED Officials manual mechanics.

Again, the inbounds spot is on his line. He will administer the throw-in. Switch on all fouls is the proper mechanic. The switch here is lead/trail, not point A/point B.

I pre-game this with veteran officials, because many seem surprised at times. Dunno when the change occurred, but many don't have the current 'book' mechanic down. Some maybe by choice? :)

I will always suggest that if the situation is right in Sit. 1, we can make a quick improv to keep good coverage and get the ball into play quickly. Say he's trail, has a closely-guarded count on a dribbler, moving away from him... he's onto the court, I'm lead, positioned with post action... ball off of defender's foot and goes out on my line. I blow, maybe look to partner for direction, he can administer the throw-in. We can get ball in more quickly and do a better job of keeping the players under view by the audible here. Or, transition situation, I sprint as lead, he has dribbler or a pass deflected in the new front court and again is onto the court, we can treat that as an extension of backcourt mechanics -- better flow, better coverage of players.

Who administered the throwin and where?

Potentially.
 

Again, switch all fouls is the mechanic. You can really showcase your cohesion and athleticism as a team by nailing this. At the same time, to keep flow of the game and coverage of players, I pre-game an audible option here.

Non-calling official should force the switch. Frozen eyes, active feet.

Scrapper1, this is what I was saying originally. If I'm Trail and it goes out of bounds on my sideline under the FT line, I will move down and become Lead and my partner will move up and become Trail. It's hard to administer a throw-in as Trail in the deep corner on your side.

I have never heard of trail becoming lead on this play. You're bouncing this anyway, so there's no reason to physically go below the FT line extended. Once you bounce it, take a couple more steps up and you're in position. It's easier than bouncing the ball to the FT line extended as lead, IMO.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. That's just the way that I've done it with most partners and no evaluators have every told me differently. I'll have to check the manual.

Stooooooopid.

You can really showcase your common sense by not long switching in this situation. Perhaps someday 2-person mechanics will catch up to the 3-person ones already in the book.

Agreed. While I usually switch on all fouls, including long-switching, I like working 3-person mechanics a LOT better. I think 2-person mechanics sometimes make it hard to observe players as the non-calling official.

Snaq, My partner administered the throw in from the Trail (tableside), at a spot well below foul line extended. I felt as though he should have switched and move to my previous position at Trail, opposite table. But, he made it clear that he wanted to administer.

Thanks

Rich, I'm quoting the book.
 

I know a lot of associations choose to ignore, but this is the prescribed mechanic in the book: Switch on all fouls. Non-calling official force the switch.

And, I believe the mechanics manual only comes out every other year(?) because no new one this year. So, your manual is the current one.

Rich,
Personally, I have always found the "no-long-switch" mechanic to slow the 3-man game down. I don't mind running a little while waiting to put the ball in play. The players are frequently confused as to where the ball is to be inbounded when they see the old lead/new trail stepping out to call the foul. Everyone then has to wait for the old lead/new trail to go back into his position and administer the throw-in.

I work with various partners in both 2-man and 3-man. I find that I stay much more focused on the game when proper mechanics are used. When the officials are hustling into position while watching the players, the game can really move. I much prefer to long switch on "no-long-switch" situations in 2-man. The game definitely moves faster albeit with a little more running on the part of the officiating crew.

Officials who move with a purpose can keep a game moving regardless of the mechanics used. My most frequent partner and I do not long switch and there is very little dead time regardless of what is called.

I don't have ANY manual. I misplaced last year's -- that was my point.

Long switch vs No Long switch
 

I don't like the long switch in 3 whistle game. It just seems to not be needed when there are 3 officials on the floor. It's a slide when moving from BC to the FC, and that is how I pregame it.
However in a 2 whistle game, I do pregame one situation where a long switch is OK. Team B is pressing Team A in Team A's BC. The new L is hanging back helping his/her P, and there is an OOB or a violation on the new T's side of the court that will give the ball back to Team B. It seems to me easier (and more timely - although I do understand Rich's opposite view) for the old L to now become the new L.