NFHS Free throw change
 

I was told that starting next year, the calling official (2 person) will go to the table on shooting fouls, meaning that as the trail on free throws, you are directly in front of the table and benches on free throws. This also means you will not switch if you are the trail and you call a shooting foul.

This may have been discussed already but I couldn't find it so I apologize if this has already been brought up.

Can someone please confirm? Mr. Bob Jenkins?


Thank you.

Just for clarification...you go table side, not at the table. You are still responsible for the 10 second count, watching the free thrower, the flight of the ball, and the 2nd & 3rd player on the opposite lane line, among other things..

It is going to be a season where we are going to have to be great communicators with coaches.

Not in CO (2 man anyway).

Why? Has the CO state association decided not to follow the new mechanic or are you saying that you don't have to communicate with the coaches in that state? :D

If CO decided to pass on this, good for them. I wish WI would do the same.

No B For Blind Jokes Please ...
 

I've heard that IAABO, with their own mechanics, will not follow the new NFHS free throw mechanics. Could someone confirm that?

Just means that we have to get a good call on the shooting fouls or there will be an earful from the coach.

I saw someone say that on the forum not long after the change was announced. I can't find the post.

Not in the 2nd half. ;)

But if a coach tries to give me an earful, the opponent will be shooting two more and getting the ball at the division line.

This has been what I've been told, although I haven't seen it from official sources.

It doesn't change how we call the game at all. Being five feet from the coach doesn't mean he gets away with anymore than if we were opposite the court.

Yeah, save all those "not good calls" for non-shooting fouls! (sarc) :rolleyes:

You're going to get an earful from some coaches no matter how good the calls are.

I know one thing that will happen. Instead of the T yielding to the L in the situation where we have a double whistle, obvious that both officials have the same call -- we will let the trail take it, especially if he is already tableside. Why switch when it's not necessary? :D

In the endgame where one team is attempting to foul, I've noticed that the trail will sometimes get 3, 4, 5, or more fouls in a row as the team that is committing the fouls will do so in the backcourt or in the outer part of the frontcourt and that will keep the trial as trail....over and over.

The same issue exists in 3-man. People get around it by having the calling official go to the C after his second such foul call.

It's not too difficult.

This happens in 2-man when, gasp, we don't long switch on fouls in the backcourt. After the second foul we'll force a switch.

In 3-person, I would probably be less inclined to switch. It's really not a big deal when the one team is *trying* to foul.

But you, being a stickler for following the prescribed mechanics that people with much more expericence have worked out, couldn't possibly do that since it is not what the book says to do. :eek:

Someone here recently said:

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.

Seems like they disagree with you...perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with them.

Yeah, I'm feeling a bit disillusioned here.

Just in the 1st half. In the 2nd half you'll be hearing how great you are and why did your partner miss the call.

Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by BillyMac http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
I've heard that IAABO, with their own mechanics, will not follow the new NFHS free throw mechanics. Could someone confirm that
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
As previously posted here: IAABO mechanics will not change. Source: Peter Webb, who writes the IAABO mechanics manual.

Iaabo
 

I believe for 3 officials, that IAABO wants the calling official to go opposite the table.
NFHS still has calling official going table side.

This is true, I got email confirmation from my assigner just this past week.

I'm still trying to figure out IAABO's role. Is it for states that would rather not deal with basketball officiating directly -- kind of a "middle man" for mechanics, etc.?

Rich, I'm in an IAABO state, and I haven't figured it out, either. I think, for all practical purposes, that seems to be the intent of the state in using them. I have to admit, transferring from one state to another would have been easier if my previous state was IAABO; but I doubt that's their stated purpose and intent.

IAABO is an umbrella organization for basketball officials in about 20 states. In many states, particularly in the Northeast, it is the major organization of basketball officials and the primary route to officiating certification in those states. IAABO has individual chapters, regionally based, which it calls "boards."

IAABO started publishing its own mechanics manual about six years ago...first for two person crews and now for both two and three person crews. Its mechanics are based primarily on NFHS mechanics, but there are some small differences. IAABO interpreters meet regularly and have regular conference calls to discuss rules, etc. They are responsible for transmitting rules and mechanics to individual members.

IAABO publishes a newsletter for its members and runs camps for its members -- where, surprise, IAABO mechanics are taught. It also publishes its own rules test each year, which is the basis for certification as an IAABO official.

I have only officiated in an IAABO environment, so I cannot say how it compares. In my area, IAABO is only the teacher and trainer. It does not assign officials, who must reach out to individual assignors for games. I know other states have tighter control over assignments through their IAABO boards.

CO has tighter control of assignments through the IAABO boards, other than that, I have to concur with BayStateRef. I will say under this environment, as opposed to the non-IAABO state I worked in, the training seems more uniform and consistent.