Proper Mechanics Questions (NFHS)
 

1) I'm Lead (opposite table). The ball goes out of bounds on tableside, below foul ling extended. I move over to tableside and remain Lead to administer throw-in. My partner (who now works D2 and D3 college games) tells me he's got it. So I go back to opposite tableside, where I was originally.

Question: Was he correct? Or, is it proper NFHS mechanic for the Lead to administer the throw-in below foul line extended? Is there anything that says it's an option for either Trail or Lead to administer?

2) I'm Trail (opposite table). My partner calls a foul in his area, in front of team B's bench. I switch and become the new Lead (tableside), ready to administer a throw-in, with ball in hand. My partner reports the foul, turns to me and says he's got it, with his hands up requesting the ball. I gave him "googly eyes" as if to let him know that I have it. He refused to go opposite table as the new Trail. So I gave him the ball and remained the Lead, but opposite table.

Question: Was he correct, again? I don't think so, but I can't seem to find anything that confirms either way.

After the game, we have a discussion about the switches. He tells me that I was wrong to switch and wrong to think that I was supposed to administer the throw-ins. We respectfully agreed to disagree.

Thanks

Assuming you mean the ball goes out on the sideline below the FT line, the Lead should administer this. The way I was taught, if the ball goes out on your line, you administer the throw-in. Since the Lead administers and it's on your partner's sideline, you should bump up and be the new Trail on your side and he'll just move down and become the new Lead on his sideline.

I don't know what he's doing on this one. As far as I know, NFHS says to switch on all fouls, and this wouldn't be switching. You're right on this one.

1) If I am reading this correctly the ball is still going to be taken out on the sideline. Then if that is the case and Trail is already on that side he can go ahead and administer the throw-in even if it is in the short corner.
2) It sounds that you are correct. I foul was called and in a 2-whistle crew you switch on all fouls. You did becoming the lead where the foul occurred and you should have administered the throw-in IMO. It sounds like he wanted to not have to move around all that much in the 2-man game. :)

I may be incorrect, I have lost touch with some of my 2-man mechanics over the years.

Was this a 2-whistle or 3-whistle game?

In either case, the NFHS mechanic is that each official will put the ball in play on his/her own boundary line. So if the ball goes out on the Trail's sideline, the Trail administers the throw-in, even below the free throw line extended.

(This is slightly different in NCAAM, where the Lead will administer the throw-in on the Trail's sideline if the throw-in is below the FT line extended.)

Were you going to be staying at that end of the floor? Or was the foul against the offensive team and now you were going to the other end? In a 2-whistle game, I believe the NFHS wants you to switch either way. In a 3-whistle game, I believe the NFHS says not to switch, but to "slide". I'm not sure about that, though, because the IAABO mechanics that I use for 3-whistle are for us to switch on those backcourt calls.

So your partner was correct in the first case, but I think you may have been correct in the second situation.

1) I'm Lead (opposite table). The ball goes out of bounds on tableside, below foul ling extended. I move over to tableside and remain Lead to administer throw-in. My partner (who now works D2 and D3 college games) tells me he's got it. So I go back to opposite tableside, where I was originally.

Question: Was he correct? Or, is it proper NFHS mechanic for the Lead to administer the throw-in below foul line extended? Is there anything that says it's an option for either Trail or Lead to administer?

If the ball goes out of bounds on the weak side, the lead is suppose to rotate over and now that side become the strong side. If the ball is below the FT Line extended, the lead can bounce the ball to the thrower.

As far as the other question, not sure what you mean.

This is not correct.

This is true for 3-whistle, but not necessarily for 2-whistle. I've seen people come across in case there's a quick pass to the post, but the Lead has to go back to his/her "correct" side of the basket in a 2-whistle game.

This is not correct. If it's the Trail's sideline, the Trail administers.

From your OP, I am not sure if you are two whistle or three whistle. I think it is two????

For two whistle:

1) Partner was correct. He was tableside and you were opposite. Ball went out on table side throw in and he should administer. If it went out on your side, then you would bounce on the side line.

2) If you are by the book in two person, that he had it right. He was near table to be report the foul and he stayed there. The less movement that you have the better to me. Although your way would work as well but took more movement.

Note: I work very limited two person and we pre game how we are going to handle things like foul reports and where we are going. I am sure that the #2 situation that you have on here would be talked about and I would want to do as your partner did.

My two cents!

Oh, sorry thought he was talking 3 whislte....my bad.

In Sit. 2 the calling official is going from lead to trial. This is a switch. He is staying on the table side, as he should because he called the foul. He did it right. This is assuming that the foul was on the defense and that the teams are staying at that end of the court.

Staying on the table side has nothing to do with switching in two-person mechanics. You go opposite of where your partner is.

Why not? Does the Lead not administer below the FT line extended? I can see where Trail would do it if it isn't very far under the FT line, but if it gets very far into the corner the Lead has to take it at some point, right?

Edit: I guess what you're saying is that the only time the Lead administers on the sideline is when it is already his sideline. So if I'm Lead on table side and it goes out on the table side sideline, do I ALWAYS move up to the the Trail to administer, or can I stay as Lead and bounce across to the sideline?

This was a 2 man game & we were staying in the frontcourt. With regards to #2, the way I've always been taught was to switch, not matter where you are on the court, on ALL fouls. And, for the off official to administer the throw-in at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. My partner suggested that when he called the foul, as the Lead, I should have stayed opposite tableside and simply dropped down as the new Lead and stayed opposite tableside. I disagreed and indicated that he was correct that I become the new Lead, but incorrect that I should not administer the throw-in tableside.

Thanks for all the input. I really appreciate it.

Yup, in that case, you switch on "every" foul. Some dont do it, but its the proper mechanic in 2-person.

I'm at a disadvantage here, since I've misplaced my mechanics manual and we only get one every two years.

However, I (personally) always have the lead bounce the ball to the thrower-in anytime the spot is below the FT line extended, regardless of the side of the court.

All I could find is this:

http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmana...erences_08.pdf

I do know regular partners and I differ from the manual on one thing -- if I'm the trail I'll switch sides of the court and let the lead come across and take the throw-in -- just as I would if the ball goes out on the sideline above the FT line extended -- I would stay trail and go across to administer the throw in and my partner would slide across as the lead. I believe the NFHS manual expects officials to stay on the same side and switch lead/trail responsibilities, which seems awkward to me.

The key part of my post, though, is that I think it's proper (and makes sense) for the lead to administer ALL throw-ins below the free-throw line extended on the sideline (woith a bounce pass) in 2-person and NEVER appropriate for the lead to administer ANY sideline throw-ins in 3-person.

Could someone post a quote from the manual instead of just asserting what is or is not correct, as I can't tell if you are asserting your local practice is what you deem correct or whether you are actually paraphrasing the manual.

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.

Obviously, the only ones that count -- those that write the mechanics manual -- agree with you.

I still maintain that the game is slowed down as we wait for the official to step out, report the foul, and step all the way back. The game is especially slowed down, in my opinion, when the ball is being inbounded along the baseline OPPOSITE the table. In this case, if the former C or T would move up to become the new T, the former L (and reporting official) would become the new C (go to the table and stay), and the former T or C would become the new L. This would, in my opinion, be a much more efficient switch as opposed to the current mechanic.

I do see your point. When the L who is opposite the table makes the call, it would seem to be faster, as you suggest, that they just exchange places with the C who is table side and move on. It does feel as if that would speed the game along. However when in Rome ... , has officials in my area doing the no switch/slide. It took me awhile to get the feel for allowing the 2 whistle long switch. So maybe as I get more 3 whistle experience, I can add that to my pregame. My first game as the R in a varsity game comes up later this week. But for some reason, it will be a 2 whistle game - probably due a heavy load of varsity games that night. Yes, my pregame will indeed include the one long switch allowed.

That was my point that going from trail to lead was that switch, not whether he administared the throw in from table side.

The reporting official only has to clear the players (in my world, anyway) to report and the C can handle any subs coming to the table. I don't see it being any quicker to switch there.