NFHS Mechanics Question (3)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Sorry, Bob, I didn't get much sleep and misread the first part of that post. I concentrated on the second half and incorrectly processed the first half as matching that principle.

I've now gone back and edited my previous response.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

1. Managing the game does NOT include being taken away from your duty to assist your partners by a coach. That's called leaving your partners in a lurch and expecting them to cover for you.

2. It depends where those players are standing. If they are right on the 3pt arc and contesting for position, then the T had better be down by the 28 foot mark to see if they break the plane of the 3pt line. The C is busy watching the FT shooter for that same violation and can't focus on both spots. If the majority of the players are back by the division line or behind, then that is where the T should be, and not to be chatting with the coach, but to be observing those players.

3. While the mechanics are suggested guidelines and I agree that the most important thing is for the crew to understand their responsibilities and be able to handle them, the mechanics are what they are because these methods have been tried and tested by many officials for years and found to give the officials the best probability of being in the right position to see the action and thus make the correct call. When a better way of accomplishing this goal is found the mechanic is changed.

They aren't just what someone sitting around a table thinks about where people should stand. They are the official mechanics for good reasons. It is my opinion that too many people have an inflated opinion of themselves and believe that they know better than these many people with many years of experience and unjustifiably alter the prescribed procedures.
More often than not that leads to problems.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sorry, Bob, I didn't get much sleep and misread the first part of that post. I concentrated on the second half and incorrectly processed the first half as matching that principle.

Maybe that's what happened when you were reading my posts.

If nothing else Nevada I have learned one thing because of you in this thread. I now know what my 16 year-old son must feel like when I tell him he's going to end up homeless or in jail just because he didn't clean up his room or do the dishes last night.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Managing the game does NOT include being taken away from your duty to assist your partners by a coach. That's called leaving your partners in a lurch and expecting them to cover for you.

My motives for being at midcourt largely deal with administering sub....not for carrying on a conversation with the coaches. It does put the T in a spot to be equally accessible by both coaches but far enough into the court such that an extended conversation is not likely. Even so, communicating with coaches is as much of your duty as calling the violations on the floor.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. It depends where those players are standing. If they are right on the 3pt arc and contesting for position, then the T had better be down by the 28 foot mark to see if they break the plane of the 3pt line. The C is busy watching the FT shooter for that same violation and can't focus on both spots. If the majority of the players are back by the division line or behind, then that is where the T should be, and not to be chatting with the coach, but to be observing those players.

How often do you see players contesting for a position on the perimeter on the first of multiple throws? For that matter, how often do you see them contesting for position on the permiter for any FT? Even if I'm down by the 28' mark and they to break the plane on the first of two FTs, I'm not going to call it unless they're running in as if to rebound....calling it only if it is obvious....not splitting hairs.

In the 2-man game, the T (who sets up in the same spot as the C in 3) can cover the permimeter players just fine for a situation that happens once every few seasons. No reason adding a 3rd official diminishes his ability to see it when it needs to be called.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3. While the mechanics are suggested guidelines and I agree that the most important thing is for the crew to understand their responsibilities and be able to handle them, the mechanics are what they are because these methods have been tried and tested by many officials for years and found to give the officials the best probability of being in the right position to see the action and thus make the correct call. When a better way of accomplishing this goal is found the mechanic is changed.

Like I said, there is often more than one valid and equally effective way to do things....all of them tried and tested by officials for years in different regions. They may have different pros/cons but ultimatly balance out about the same. One is sometimes picked over the others, not becasue one is fundamentaly better than the others, but so that everyone is on the same page. My way is not necessarily better than your way nor is it worse, just different. And, if the entire crew is together, it can work just as well.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They aren't just what someone sitting around a table thinks about where people should stand. They are the official mechanics for good reasons. It is my opinion that too many people have an inflated opinion of themselves and believe that they know better than these many people with many years of experience and unjustifiably alter the prescribed procedures.
More often than not that leads to problems.

The people I hear teaching the 3-person T at the division line on the first FT are college assignors, NBA evaluators, and long time/accomplished college officials. They are not some rogue hotshot individual deciding randomly where to stand. They arguably have more/better experience than those that are on the committees making the decision.

Keep in mind that some states write their own mechanics books and disregard the NFHS book entirely. Are you saying that the leaders in those states are not qualified to establish a valid and effective set of mechanics?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

My motives for being at midcourt largely deal with administering sub....not for carrying on a conversation with the coaches. It does put the T in a spot to be equally accessible by both coaches but far enough into the court such that an extended conversation is not likely. Even so, communicating with coaches is as much of your duty as calling the violations on the floor.

I've never understood why some people think that they have to be three feet away from a sub in order to beckon him in.
Can't you bring the sub in equally well from the 28 foot line?

I must have a different definition of communicating with coaches than many others. I have no problem giving a coach an explanation of an unusual ruling or a rare situation, but I'm not interested in hearing his gripe after a simple foul call. Coaches don't have the right to argue and contest the officials' decisions during the normal course of the game. Sadly, most officials don't take these rule provisions seriously enough:
10-4-1 . . . Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
...
b. Attempting to influence an official’s decision.
...
e. Objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or using
gestures.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How often do you see players contesting for a position on the perimeter on the first of multiple throws? For that matter, how often do you see them contesting for position on the permiter for any FT? Even if I'm down by the 28' mark and they to break the plane on the first of two FTs, I'm not going to call it unless they're running in as if to rebound....calling it only if it is obvious....not splitting hairs.

Yep, the "nothing's going to happen" attitude. That is until it does and bites you in butt because your not ready for it.
Do you make the same contention about the Lead official? How often do you see players along the lane line contesting for position during the first FT? Why can't he stand on the FT lane line or way out in the corner on the first FT? Why do you think that the NCAA insists that he be in proper position?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In the 2-man game, the T (who sets up in the same spot as the C in 3) can cover the permimeter players just fine for a situation that happens once every few seasons. No reason adding a 3rd official diminishes his ability to see it when it needs to be called.

So what's the purpose of having the third official? You obviously think that the C can handle this without him. I guess you are in the same school of thought as BNR and would allow the T to go get a cup of coffee during the first FT.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've never understood why some people think that they have to be three feet away from a sub in order to beckon him in.
Can't you bring the sub in equally well from the 28 foot line?

No I can't see them from that far away since I'm blind.

Who said anything about being 3' from the subs?

The point is that you can see the goings on at the table area far easier when you're standing on the division facing the frontcout than you can from the 28' mark with your back to the table.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, the "nothing's going to happen" attitude. That is until it does and bites you in butt because your not ready for it.
Do you make the same contention about the Lead official? How often do you see players along the lane line contesting for position during the first FT? Why can't he stand on the FT lane line or way out in the corner on the first FT? Why do you think that the NCAA insists that he be in proper position?

Anything the trail will need to call will be just as easy to see from the division line. Your point is irrelevant.

What would you say if the NCAA was the one suggesting the trail be at the division line on the first of 2 FTs and move to the 28' mark on the last FT? Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So what's the purpose of having the third official? You obviously think that the C can handle this without him. I guess you are in the same school of thought as BNR and would allow the T to go get a cup of coffee during the first FT.

No, the T has other duties and is tending to them at half court and is providing secondary coverage of the FT activity from the division line and will move into a different position when there may be a rebound. There is NOTHING on the first of two FTs the trail NEEDs to call that can't be seen from the division line.

[Rich]

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.

Somebody needs to climb back off the ledge. And don't confuse me with somebody who doesn't work 3-person. I work 20-ish varsity boys games a year 3-person. "Being vigilant" during the first of 2 (or 3) is seriously way less important to me (and to most people I work with) than communicating with coaches or keeping an eye on the table. If 2 officials can't watch stationary players during an uncontested free throw, then "lah me" is right. But even so, I'm not going to get a coffee when standing at the division line or communicating with a coach. I can listen with my ears and watch with my eyes. Heck, I've even talked with coaches during a, gasp, live ball. Life went on.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

You're kidding, right?

While a coach isn't going to get a call changed, I sureashell know part of the gig is listening and talking and going tableside was put in place to facilitate that communication.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You're kidding, right?

While a coach isn't going to get a call changed, I sureashell know part of the gig is listening and talking and going tableside was put in place to facilitate that communication.

Then what's the point of coddling him? The coach should STFU towards the official and focus on instructing his team. Afterall, he's not the official's coach, now is he?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then what's the point of coddling him? The coach should STFU towards the official and focus on instructing his team. Afterall, he's not the official's coach, now is he?

I don't coddle anyone. But making it so the guy doesn't try to yell across the floor is a good thing, IMO.

[Raymond]

Some folks are incapable of having a conversation in here without calling names and getting personal, so I can understand why they avoid any type of contact with coaches. It's beyond their grasp of reality that many officials can communicate with coaches, even volatile coaches, without it ending with a technical foul or turning into a 5 minute dialog.

[M&M Guy]

This is fun.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Some folks are incapable of having a conversation in here without calling names and getting personal, so I can understand why they avoid any type of contact with coaches. It's beyond their grasp of reality that many officials can communicate with coaches, even volatile coaches, without it ending with a technical foul or turning into a 5 minute dialog.

This is where spending 20 years as a baseball umpire or a spending a dozen as a football wing official comes in handy. I can have a conversation with a coach without anyone else knowing we're talking. And while I'm watching other things, too.

Of course, I don't consider coaches enemies, either. They have a role, I have a role. When they step out of line, I deal with it. If I can keep them from stepping out of line by having a short chat, I consider that part of the gig.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

This is where spending 20 years as a baseball umpire or a spending a dozen as a football wing official comes in handy. I can have a conversation with a coach without anyone else knowing we're talking. And while I'm watching other things, too.

Of course, I don't consider coaches enemies, either. They have a role, I have a role. When they step out of line, I deal with it. If I can keep them from stepping out of line by having a short chat, I consider that part of the gig.

So in other words, you can chew bubble gum & walk at the same time
Multi-tasking is a great quality to possess when it comes to officiating.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

So in other words, you can chew bubble gum & walk at the same time
Multi-tasking is a great quality to possess when it comes to officiating.

As is the ability to recognize that mechanics are guidelines - not set in stone commandments that must be followed at all costs.