NFHS Mechanics Question (3)
 

I'm looking over the NFHS Basketball Officials Manual 2007-09 and have a few questions I'd like to throw out there.

In a 2 person crew:

#1.

2.2 Putting the Ball in Play (Jump ball) (p.19) The manual states:

"E. Possession Gained in Team's Backcourt.
1. Umpire will move with the ball to become the Trail.
2. Referee will move into Lead position. See Diagram 2-4"

My question is do you guys/gals follow this mechanic on a jump ball? I am not sure if I've ever seen that done here in Texas. In virtually all cases I see the R take the Trail position regardless of possession gained in Team's Front or Backcourt.


#2.

2.2 Putting the Ball in Play (Free Throws) (p.23-24) The manual states:

Lead Official:
"6. Watch the first space on the near lane line and all the spaces on the opposite lane..."

Trail Official:
5. Observe the thrower and top two spaces on the opposite lane line..."

(Diagram 2-12 is used to illustrate)

Question: Since the players were moved up one space for the 08-09 season, is this coverage still valid? What is the correct coverage if it's not?


#3.

2.3 Court Coverage (Three Point Try) (p.30) The manual states:

"6. When the Lead Official signals a successful three point attempt, the Trail official shall mirror the signal."

Question: I believe that I was told that the Lead should only signal that the attempted shot is a 3 point attempt --Not signal if the basket is good. I was told the Trail should pick up the attempt and signal if the basket is good. What is the correct mechanic for the Lead?

Appreciate the help! Again I am in the great state of Texas if it helps rule clarification. :D

1. I think the only answer here is, it all depends. Say the ball is tipped deep into the b/c along the tableside sideline with a trap on. Do we really expect the R to stay on the circle until it's cleared, then hustle way over there to see if the player is OOB?? Pre-game is critical!

2. Yes, but we're IAABO (check your local listings)

3. I was told that too, but I think the manual says how it should be done. Now that i think about it, it sounds as if the person(s) spreading those half-truths are mixing up 3 person transition coverage & 2 person mechanics.

1) 99% of the time, the R becomes the T. If the ball is in the BC AND it's contested, then U goes with the ball and becomes the T.

2) Same coverage (but some local associations change this so each official watches the side closest to them).

3) The manual is correct -- L has the try AND the success; T mirrors ONLY the success.

You may do things differently in your local association, but here are the NFHS answers to your questions.
1. That means if the ball goes deep into the backcourt, not just near the division line. If the tap gets knocked into the 3pt arc or below the FT line extended, then the U has to run down there to cover the play. Someone may foul or the ball could go OOB and a decision can't be made by the R from midcout. In such cases it makes sense for the U to become the Trail and start a ten second backcourt count.
Don't hung up on the wording and confuse the above with clear control being established less than ten feet in the backcourt and all of the players moving towards the other end. In that case the U needs to go be the Lead.

2. Which players that text says for the officials to observe is no longer valid. You are correct that the players moving up a spot changed this a bit. The two officials still cover the shaded areas in that diagram. It's just that the players are now in different spots. So the Lead has the three marked lane spaces OPPOSITE him, and the Trail has the FT shooter and the three marked lane spaces OPPOSITE of him.
PS With the new mechanic for the coming season the diagram will be a mirror image of the actual coverage.

3. In 2-man if the Lead gives a preliminary signal becaue the try was attempted from his primary coverage area, then he also gives the "touchdown" signal on a successful three point goal.
In 3-man the Lead may sometimes need to help by giving a preliminary, but never gives the "touchdown" signal.

Regarding #3, I've always been advised to help with a signal for an attempt if need be. The trail official, if he's paying attention, should pick it up, then I would put my arm down and go back to my primary under the basket to watch for rebounding fouls and the like.

In my area, we are told to NEVER mark the three point shot as Lead. Outside the three point line isn't in the Lead's area anyway, so I like it this way.

Never mark as lead? Since when does lead not have a three-point arc coverage. In three person mechanics you may be right but in two person mechanics the lead has corner to FT line extended on the one side, and by book should mark and signal if it is good with Trail mirroring.


Even in three man I would never say never... If you have a fast transition, lead mya have best look at a quick three since C is oppositeand trail may be way out of play ...

You must give the touchdown signals if the trail and center fail to. If not it becomes an official's error and not a scoring error.

If that happens, then you should blow the whistle to stop play and ask your C and T if either of them saw you indicate that the try was a 3. You can then let one of them give the "touchdown" signal to the table before resuming the game.

If it is wrong, change it immediately. This should not be something you "ask" if you have a 3 and they did not signal.

At least that is how it is done at all levels I have worked.

So if you know there was a three point shot missed, then you go to the table and say, "That was a 3." You do not have a conversation with your partners for something like this in my opinion.

My bad. I was talking about 3-man only. I totally agree with you for 2-man.

You're right about transition. If I'm Lead and I know that the Trail doesn't see it, I'll mark the try and let him give the touchdown signal if good. That's the only time though.

2-man free throw positioning
 

Worked by first 2-man games with the new mechanic. I absolutely hate it more than any mechanic I've encountered in my 7 1/2 years of officiating.

Why? :confused:

Because you can't remember where to go? :eek:

I worked it this weekend for the first time. I didn't notice much of a difference - except in the L. I had to change my personal mechanics due to being opposite the table. I'll get over it, relearn, and move on.

Actually that wasn't a problem. Forgetting that I was responsible for the free throw shooter was. I constantly started way too high then realized I needed to get down in position. My partners for the most part never did come done to properly monitor the shooter. Also I don't like that neither official has a view of the benches and table.

I don't understand how being tableside would move you up higher than being opposite. Were you forgetting that you were working 2-man and thinking that you were the Trail in a 3-man system because you were standing tableside?

If that's the case, then I don't see this as a problem with the mechanic, but rather with the mental focus of an old dog learning a new trick. ;)

I worked a camp last week with the new 2-man mechanics. I didn't have much of a problem with it, but a lot of the other guys that were there did.

The bad thing was that we did some 3-man work as well, and several people couldn't remember which side to go to as Lead on FTs because of the change in 2-man. :confused:

Just like any other mechanics changes, it will take some time to get use to and then it wont even be a second thought.

Honestly I do not see the big deal. There will be an adjustment period, but it will become second nature. And for those of us that hardly work 2 Person, this is really not a big deal.

Peace

Adjusting to a mechanic is never a problem with me. I can do that in my sleep.

My major complaint with the mechanic is that we are blind to the benches and table for the entire free throw process.

Additionally, if this were done to facilitate communication it's only effective the 1st half b/c in the 2nd half you'll still be 35-40 feet from the coach who wants your attention.

I think it will help with the communication aspect of 2 person. Now you have an official over there to answer any questions.

In the 1st half. And with your back to the coach.

Are you blind to the benches and table in 3-man?
Why can't the Lead who is now opposite see this stuff?

The same point can be said about 3-man, yet they still desire the calling official to be over there.
One could claim that 30 feet away is better than 60 feet away.

Yeah, you have an official over to answer any questions. However, I cannot or will not attempt to answer a question about a partner(s) call. I will let the coach know I will pass the question on to my partner(s) or they will be over here soon enough to answer the specific question.

That's why the new mechanic is for the CALLING official to become the tableside Trail during FTs. :D

In 3-man the official near the table is not responsible for the shooter. He is at half-court for the first of 2 free throws, which is halfway between both coaches, 16-20 ft. Additionally he can position himself to speak to the coach(es) if need be. In 2-man, the new trail has no leeway to do anything because he needs to be in position to monitor the free throw shooter.

In 3-man the lead and center can glance over at the table/benches to pick up any subs or T-O requests that the Trail might have missed.

Comparing the trail in 3-man and 2-man is apple/oranges.

Yeah, you are right!;)

Oh dear! I certainly hope that you aren't allowing the Trail to wander around out near the division line. :eek: According the the NFHS manual that isn't even close to where he belongs. Page 58 states that he should be at approximately the 28' mark in the frontcourt and that he should be assisting with FT violations and fouls. The only reason to be elsewhere is if there are players in the backcourt who require observation.
Having the Trail simply leave and go talk to a coach in near the division line or in the backcourt is to admit that he isn't needed and is having no involvement whatsoever with the observation of the FT activity. :o

Now that may be possible in 3-man because there are two other officials to handle those responsibilities, but I seriously doubt that was the intent of the system. It is just a liberty that some people take when working 3-man, and frankly it annoys me because I perceive it as that individual not doing his job or pulling his fair share of the load. As the C I don't want to be watching the players outside of the 3-pt line. :( That's the Trail's job. I want to be able to concentrate on the FT shooter and the players in my lane-spaces. I'm not interested in having to do my task as well as cover the Trail's responsibilities because he is off chatting with a coach. :mad:

You do rightly point out that the Trail has some important things to do in the 2-man system and can't be distracted from these duties by the desire of either of the coaches for a conversation. I agree that there is much less leeway with only two officials on the court than three. Your focus has to be maintained where it should be or you will certainly miss things.
But if the responsibilities of the Trail in 2-man during FT administration are so important, wouldn't it be better to have two people sharing that load? That would mean that the Trail in 3-man should remain in the frontcourt and make a meaningful contribution rather than abandoning the C to fulfill the task of the 2-man Trail. If the extra official isn't going to give this person any help, then why the heck is he out there? :confused:

And in 2-man the Lead can glance over at the table/benches to pick up any subs or T-O requests that the Trail might have missed. :D
It's just that there is only one person to do this rather than two, so it's a little more difficult.
It seems to me that your argument is merely saying that everything can be seen better by more officials, which is basically stating the obvious, and so why don't we go to 4-man or 5-man like HS football? :cool:

Actually that can be said of comparing ANY aspect of 3-man and 2-man. With one fewer person, there is much less flexibility and far less leeway for people to be glancing around at things outside of their primary coverage areas.

Did you miss the part where he said "the first of two?" And yes, we do that around here. If there's another free throw (or two), the T goes to the division line near the jump circle and then moves for the last free throw. No responsibilities are ignored -- unless you consider it vital we closely monitor a free throw where no rebound is contested...

Thanks Rich, you saved me some keystrokes. :)

Thanks Rich, you saved me some keystrokes. :)

Kinda hard to glance at the benches or table when you have 7 bodies directly in your line of vision, which happens now in the new 2-man mechanic. ;)

Not saying that at all. I'm saying the new 2-man mechanic cuts outs a lot of vision. And the supposed pay-off of facilitating communication is not worth the trade-off, IMO.

Employing the new mechanic is no problem at all. I'm just failing to see the benefit.

IMO, the biggest thing is communication with coaches when you now in the trail table side.

Are you turning away from the shooter so you can speak with the coaches?

Nope, but I am sure he will walk down beside the official for a quick question. I have responded to questions from coaches without taking my eyes of players.

Nope, didn't miss that at all. In fact, people shirking their duties during the first FT is one of my biggest pet peeves.

It seems that these folks feel that they are entitled to take a break and go have a chat and a cup of coffee with one of the coaches because they've done their job and it ended with the calling of the foul.

BTW just a couple of seasons ago the NCAA came out with a directive for the positioning of the LEAD during the first FT. They stated that he belonged in the same proper position as during the last FT. He shouldn't be standing along the lane just below the first lane space. He should be in proper position observing the players for fouls and violations. Furthermore, the author stated the people who didn't adhere to this wouldn't be working the NCAA tournament.

The attitude being displayed here by some posters that the officials can be anywhere they please and watching whatever they wish during the first FT because the chance that something which needs to be penalized is slim is way too cavalier for my taste. It also looks unprofessional.

How do you do that for the coach at the other end of the court?

IAABO wants the T at the division line on the first of two FTs. And also says the L should never be on the court.

In one breath you admit that it is harder for two officials to look around and see everyone that they need to even prior to the administration of the FT, yet you agree with Rich and think that it is okay to have the third official wander away from his prescribed position and leave his TWO partners to handle those tasks despite your acknowledgment of their difficulty in doing so! :eek:

Hmmmmmmm...... with such an attitude do you even see the value in having that third official on the court? Do you think that he's only there to help out on certain plays or a select times? Is your idea of 3-man that it is basically 2-man with an extra helper who makes calls when he is needed, and that he isn't needed during dead ball periods or less active times such as FT administration?

I'm not surprised by Rich expressing such a sentiment because he predominately works 2-man.

The rest of us should remember that 3-man isn't supposed to be lazy 2-man.

PS How many times has FT administration been a POE in the past few years? Could it be because people aren't taking it seriously and think that it is time to take a rest? ;)

I guess that IAABO got this one half right. Their stance on the Lead must come from their leadership who mostly work college ball and have had this point stressed to them lately. I can't imagine why the principle would be different for the Trail. If the NCAA brass doesn't want the Lead out of position for the first FT, why would anyone think that it would be okay for the Trail or Center to be out of position for that FT attempt?

The same way you would in 3 person, wait until you get to that end of the court....LOL.

How do you do that for the coach at the other end of the court?

No, that's just your twisted interpretation. My supervisors don't have a problem with the trail in a 3-man crew addressing the coach in the backcourt during the 1st of 2 free throws as long as they are in position for the 2nd. They also expect the lead to recognize if the Trail is addressing the coaches or table and ensure the Trail is ready before administering any "live" free throws (single throw; 1-and-1; 2nd of 2; 3rd of 3).

Find me a direct quote where I said anything you just typed here. You will hard-pressed to do so. If you are going to para-phase my thoughts please so do so at least semi-accurately.

WTF are you talking about? :eek: Mentally lazy would best describe what your just typed b/c you just pulled some sh!t out of thin air instead of actually taking the time to read and comprehend what has actually been written. ;)

I cant ever remembering having to address a coach in the BC during a FT as the trail. But, I have address them in FC as the trail on several occations while in the trail position. This is both on the college and high school level. Just my 2 cents, not speaking for anyone else.

So you've never had a coach in the backcourt who wanted to ask a question?

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.

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? :eek:

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!!!!!

Damn Prez, you came up with a funny. :p

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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

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

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. :cool: or ;) (can't decide on which to use since I'm so wishy-washy)

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.
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.

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.

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?

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. :confused:
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.

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?

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 I can't see them from that far away since I'm blind. :p

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

:cool: 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. ;)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...rn-clipart.jpg
This is fun. :D

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 :D
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.

No doubt, I totally agree!
There's no absolutes or always in officiating, because it's not a science, it's an art form!

http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_p...leon_horse.jpg



Do you feel bigger up there on that horse?

Why in the world would you post a message to yourself?:confused:

I'm kind of confused. I was taught, many years ago, that the T is supposed to be at the division line during the first free throw for subs, etc. As far as I know, that is the mechanic.

Nevada, are you telling us something that everyone else has been wrong about? Ironically, at least one of BNR's supervisors used to be my supervisor too. Even more ironically, Nevada was in an area where he could have had direct or indirect contact with this same supervisor - Donnee Gray. The last irony (for me anyway) is that I know BNR and Nevada.

Nevada, the guys in Southern Nevada stand at half court...I'm just saying.

Even more ironically I lived in Nevada for 5 years and Tomegun used to officiate my games long before I ever considered becoming an official. :cool: Kevin Bacon is sure to pop up somewhere in this thread. :p

That's funny! :p