NFHS Mechanics Question (3)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Not that I can think of right now. The last coach that had a question that was located in the back court, actually came into front court complaining and I stopped the game and walked him back to his box in the BC.

So you should have T'd him up.

I just find it hard to believe that in the 2nd half of all your games that the defensive coach has never had a question after his team has been whistled for a foul. If that's the case then being able to communicate to coaches in the trail shouldn't be that important.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Where is Jurassic when I need him? This is fully deserving of a "Lah me."

Are you freaking kidding? Your supervisors are not only fools, they are doing you a great disservice by allowing you to instill such a bad habit in your game.

What they are stating by accepting that practice is that there is absolutely nothing for the Trail official in a 3-man crew to do prior to the ball becoming live on the final FT. In other words, they are sure that those two other guys out there can handle everything and anything perfectly. That's just BS and you know it. Every trainer on the planet stresses the importance of being vigilant during dead ball periods. I'm sure that you've heard that those are the times when the most problems arise.

Would your supervisor have a problem if the Trail official went over and got a drink of water during this time? How about if he left the court and went to the drinking fountain in the hallway? He's not doing any officiating then anyway.

Then to state that the Lead should wait until the Trail is finished talking with the coach and has returned to where he belongs prior to making the ball live is utter nonsense. That's just giving the coach a free time-out. If he's smart he can rest his players any time he wants just by asking a few silly questions. There's rule against a team preventing the ball from being made promptly live. Are your supers aware of that?

I guess that in southern VA the officials allow the coaches to hold up the game and resume it at the pace that they desire and when they are good and ready. This should work wonderfully for the slow-tempo team and annoy the heck out of the coach of the full-court pressing side. And I thought that a basketball game took so long because of all the media time-outs.

Thankfully, I officiated in northern VA. Lah-freakin'-me.

Well, 2 of those supervisors are multiple Final Four officials but I'll pass along your displeasure.

And where do you get the idiotic premise that every free throw requires an extended conversation with a coach or that the trail spends all free throws commesurating with table personnel? Surely not from anything I've written to date. You do have a Georgetown education so I'm sure your comprehension skills can't be that lacking. Or was hyperbole a major at GU?

And I guess if you are ever addressing a problem at the table you pre-game for your partners to go ahead and administer the free throws and you'll catch up with game action later?

[Nevadaref]

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

So remind me again why the NFHS went to the new 2-man mechanic of putting the trail tableside?

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Where is Jurassic when I need him? This is fully deserving of a "Lah me."

Are you freaking kidding? Your supervisors are not only fools, they are doing you a great disservice by allowing you to instill such a bad habit in your game.

What they are stating by accepting that practice is that there is absolutely nothing for the Trail official in a 3-man crew to do prior to the ball becoming live on the final FT. In other words, they are sure that those two other guys out there can handle everything and anything perfectly. That's just BS and you know it. Every trainer on the planet stresses the importance of being vigilant during dead ball periods. I'm sure that you've heard that those are the times when the most problems arise.

Would your supervisor have a problem if the Trail official went over and got a drink of water during this time? How about if he left the court and went to the drinking fountain in the hallway? He's not doing any officiating then anyway.

Then to state that the Lead should wait until the Trail is finished talking with the coach and has returned to where he belongs prior to making the ball live is utter nonsense. That's just giving the coach a free time-out. If he's smart he can rest his players any time he wants just by asking a few silly questions. There's rule against a team preventing the ball from being made promptly live. Are your supers aware of that?

I guess that in southern VA the officials allow the coaches to hold up the game and resume it at the pace that they desire and when they are good and ready. This should work wonderfully for the slow-tempo team and annoy the heck out of the coach of the full-court pressing side. And I thought that a basketball game took so long because of all the media time-outs.

Thankfully, I officiated in northern VA. Lah-freakin'-me.

Okay, lets take a deep breath here and calm down. We all know that all Sup's have their preferences and pet peeves. When in Rome, you have to do what Romans do. Maybe one day all Sup's will be on one accord and not a honda!!!!!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

Maybe one day all Sup's will be on one accord and not a honda!!!!!

Damn Prez, you came up with a funny.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well, 2 of those supervisors are multiple Final Four officials but I'll pass along your displeasure.

Please do because what they are teaching is irresponsible. It's that damn big-dog attitude of I can get away with doing this because I've been doing this for so many years and I'm that good. I'd guess that they are old school officials who don't care for all the precision in the mechanics and adherence to the rulesbook that is being demanded by the NCAA brass these days.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And where do you get the idiotic premise that every free throw requires an extended conversation with a coach? Do you ever use common sense in your posts or was hyperbole a major at Georgetown?

The Jesuits are big teachers of Sophist philosophy.
But for the record, I don't think that ANY FT situation requires an extended conversation with a coach. If I ever had to wait for you to finish chatting with a coach before administering a FT, I'd be so ticked off that the next time that I threw you the ball it would hit your shoetops.

When a coach won't let something go, I've used, "You'll see it on the tape, and if you don't like it, I'm sure that you send it to X," and that's the end of it. Does it make the coaches happy that I won't coddle them? Nope. Do I care? Nope. I've got a game to administer. I'm not trying to be their best friend or make their Christmas card list.
I guess you're the type who feels their pain.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And I guess if you are ever addressing a problem at the table you pre-game for your partners to go ahead and administer the free throws and you'll catch up?

See your own point above.

PS The table is part of the officiating crew. If they have a problem or a question, WE have a problem or a question. That's vastly different from a coach with a gripe or an ulterior motive slowing down the game. I know that the table personnel isn't trying to gain a competitive advantage by making an inquiry.

[IREFU2]

Like I said, to the best of my knowlegde, nothing that I can remember sticks out. As far as the "t", he was loosing and fustrated. IMO, a T was not warranted in that situation and my partners thanked me for not giving him a T. Now, in my earlier days, I would have stuck em.....

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

Maybe their thoughts aren't important, but the mere fact that we took a moment to communicate what happened is NOT a bad thing.
Could be the difference in putting out a small fire or pouring gasoline on the fire.

I think what seperates the best of the best from the rest is great communication skills.

That being said, if you're talking to a coach/player on the first FT we shouldn't still be talking or holding up the game for the second FT.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Damn Prez, you came up with a funny.

I can be funny once and a while!!!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by IREFU2

I can be funny once and a while!!!!

Both at the same time or just that once and then not again for a while?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

When a coach won't let something go, I've used, "You'll see it on the tape, and if you don't like it, I'm sure that you send it to X," and that's the end of it. Does it make the coaches happy that I won't coddle them? Nope. Do I care? Nope. I've got a game to administer. I'm not trying to be their best friend or make their Christmas card list.
I guess you're the type who feels their pain.

Again, you're just pulling doo-doo from thin air. And again, I'm waiting for you to point to anything in my posts that says anything about extended conversations with coaches. Guess you just don't know me too well. or (can't decide on which to use since I'm so wishy-washy)

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

See your own point above.

PS The table is part of the officiating crew. If they have a problem or a question, WE have a problem or a question. That's vastly different from a coach with a gripe or an ulterior motive slowing down the game. I know that the table personnel isn't trying to gain a competitive advantage by making an inquiry.

Doesn't say much for the coaches in Nevada if every time they ask you a question it's for the sole purpose of slowing down the game. Must be a regional thing.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Please do because what they are teaching is irresponsible. It's that damn big-dog attitude of I can get away with doing this because I've been doing this for so many years and I'm that good. I'd guess that they are old school officials who don't care for all the precision in the mechanics and adherence to the rulesbook that is being demanded by the NCAA brass these days.

They are big-dawgs by accomplishment, not attitude. They believe in civil, pertinent, concise, and short communication with coaches when needed. Even if it means sacrificing the santity of the game by quickly stepping into the backcourt to answer a question during a free throw.

And they are most definitely sticklers for proper mechanics. And they also live in the real world and tell you that there are things that some officials can do and get away with that others cannot. And that is reality, like it or not.

BTW, still waiting on the answer for this one:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since when are the thoughts of a coach about a call considered important?

So remind me again why the NFHS went to the new 2-man mechanic of putting the trail tableside?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So remind me again why the NFHS went to the new 2-man mechanic of putting the trail tableside?

In my area it's going to increase the team FT percentages because the best FT shooters are the ones who get to attempt the shots for technical fouls.

I doubt that's what the NFHS had in mind though.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't normally agree with IAABO, but they sure got this one right. This stance must come from their leadership who mostly work college ball and have had these points stressed to them lately.

Now I'm confused. I thought that's what everyone else was saying they did and you were saying it's wrong?

In any event, it is the proper mechanic in 3-person games in IL -- T at the division line during the first of two FTs unless s/he needs to converse with either coach (any such conversations should not detract from T's responsibilities). T moves to the 28' mark for the second (last) FT.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Please do because what they are teaching is irresponsible. It's that damn big-dog attitude of I can get away with doing this because I've been doing this for so many years and I'm that good. I'd guess that they are old school officials who don't care for all the precision in the mechanics and adherence to the rulesbook that is being demanded by the NCAA brass these days.

Or, it is a choice not to be lazy but to be in a better position to manage the game.

If you can't, on a non-rebounding FT, observe the players outside the 3-point line from the division line (which is a point you claim as the reason for the T to drop down), you should retire.

While you can make the arguement that the rules should be enforced the same everywhere, that argument doesn't apply to mechanics. The mechanics book just provides guidelines, not a rules. Nothing in the mechanics book is required unless your local organization chooses to adopt it. Of course, many do, but many do not. There is no one right way to do mechanics. All that matters is that the crew knows what to expect of each other...who is watching what, etc.