Requirement or Courtesy?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Isn't this situation covered in the mechanics manual?

Does the Fed not say that an official is to inform a coach when they have zero timeouts remaining? Why do you choose to not follow that mechanic? What other mechanics do you not follow? And why?

I have said this before and I will say this again. The NF's position on any mechanics are they are not absolutes and do not need to be followed if a state, jurisdiction or association does not want to follow them. And that did not come from me that came from Mary Struckoff herself when I asked her this issue directly. The NF Manual is to give a guideline so there is some uniformity, but they know that states, organizations or boards do not follow them and they do not try to tell states how to use mechanics. Just like the NF cannot tell states how to license officials or train officials, they cannot tell states what they want their officials to do as it relates to everything from what they wear to what mechanics they use or do not use.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

If the scorer doesn't inform us, I agree that logically we don't need to inform the coach. However, I recognize that scorekeepers often don't have the same mindset as officials do.

IMHO, the Fed has said that their wish is that coaches are informed when their last timeout was taken. The process they implemented is well-documented. I think the Fed would rather officials ask or be aware of remaining TOs than to say "we didn't know" after the fact.

I do not know where you have received your information but I have never read anything that has asked officials to "find out" what the timeout situation is with teams. I have never seen any such thing suggested. All we have is a rule that is in my opinion is purposely vague. I do not see any penalty for us doing this or not doing this other than maybe someone that evaluates you to get upset about this. I have yet to find an evaluator/assignor care that much if at all.

Peace

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have said this before and I will say this again. The NF's position on any mechanics are they are not absolutes and do not need to be followed if a state, jurisdiction or association does not want to follow them. And that did not come from me that came from Mary Struckoff herself when I asked her this issue directly.

I am pleased to know that using standard signs are optional. I have several that I have invented all by myself that I am dying to use, and now I see that the editor of the rule book has decreed that the mechanics are optional.

Question: Does this mean she can use her editorial fiat in other areas and change substantive playing rules as well? What if she decreed that it would henceforth be a foul to go "over the back?" Apparently she has more power than the rules committee...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I am pleased to know that using standard signs are optional. I have several that I have invented all by myself that I am dying to use, and now I see that the editor of the rule book has decreed that the mechanics are optional.

Question: Does this mean she can use her editorial fiat in other areas and change substantive playing rules as well? What if she decreed that it would henceforth be a foul to go "over the back?" Apparently she has more power than the rules committee...

You obviously did not read what I said. I said that if a state wants to dictate their officials use mechanics (which BTW are much more than signals), is their right to do so. There are several examples across this country where states want their officials to do very specific things that do not follow the NF Manuals. I did not even mention signals, I mentioned mechanics. Things like where you stand, when you stand there, who moves after a foul, who has the last second shot and how you can hand the ball on the end line. Considering that the NF Manual is often incomplete or not specific, states have to fill in the blanks or change what they feel is necessary. I am going to take her word for it that she is speaking for expectations of the committee (considering she actually works for the NF and most committee members do not) and that she knows a little more about how this works than you or I do. I do know in my state our state decided not to use many of the mechanics in two other sports I work and my state is considered 100% compliance state. And there are some major things my state wants us to do that only reviewing the NF Manuals would be confusing.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have said this before and I will say this again. The NF's position on any mechanics are they are not absolutes and do not need to be followed if a state, jurisdiction or association does not want to follow them. And that did not come from me that came from Mary Struckoff herself when I asked her this issue directly. The NF Manual is to give a guideline so there is some uniformity, but they know that states, organizations or boards do not follow them and they do not try to tell states how to use mechanics. Just like the NF cannot tell states how to license officials or train officials, they cannot tell states what they want their officials to do as it relates to everything from what they wear to what mechanics they use or do not use.

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I am pleased to know that using standard signs are optional. I have several that I have invented all by myself that I am dying to use, and now I see that the editor of the rule book has decreed that the mechanics are optional.

Question: Does this mean she can use her editorial fiat in other areas and change substantive playing rules as well? What if she decreed that it would henceforth be a foul to go "over the back?" Apparently she has more power than the rules committee...

Interesting that Mary would say this in light of the following:

2008-09 Points of Emphasis

5. Officials Mechanics and Signals. Communication and consistency remain the most important elements of good officiating. It is essential for officials to be familiar and comfortable with proper NFHS mechanics and signals. .........................................

Approved NFHS signals are dignified, informative and meaningful. The use of unauthorized signals frequently confuses, because the meaning is unknown.

[M&M Guy]

You do need to understand the context of her statement. All Mary is saying is a state or governing body can change certain mechanics if they feel it is better suited to what that state wants to accomplish. What is not acceptable in either case is for an official to deviate from what that governing body says are the proper mechanincs.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Interesting that Mary would say this in light of the following:

2008-09 Points of Emphasis

5. Officials Mechanics and Signals. Communication and consistency remain the most important elements of good officiating. It is essential for officials to be familiar and comfortable with proper NFHS mechanics and signals. .........................................

Approved NFHS signals are dignified, informative and meaningful. The use of unauthorized signals frequently confuses, because the meaning is unknown.

What go you expect the NFHS to say?

"The mechanics are frequently redundant, look goofy, and, frankly, they suck."

The NFHS telling me the NFHS's mechanics are anything other than what they made up makes me laugh.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What go you expect the NFHS to say?

"The mechanics are frequently redundant, look goofy, and, frankly, they suck."

The NFHS telling me the NFHS's mechanics are anything other than what they made up makes me laugh.

LOL!!!

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What go you expect the NFHS to say?

"The mechanics are frequently redundant, look goofy, and, frankly, they suck."

The NFHS telling me the NFHS's mechanics are anything other than what they made up makes me laugh.

I expect them to say what they said. What I don't expect is for the editor of their book to say anything to the contrary.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I expect them to say what they said. What I don't expect is for the editor of their book to say anything to the contrary.

She was not talking about basketball. And my direct question to her was not about basketball either. She was speaking as a NF employee and the powers and ability of the NF. The NF is not all powerful and knowing unlike what some want to think.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

She was not talking about basketball. And my direct question to her was not about basketball either. She was speaking as a NF employee and the powers and ability of the NF. The NF is not all powerful and knowing unlike what some want to think.

Peace

Your blasphemy is noted and reported; and will be dealt with appropriately.