The problem is the kid who sneaks up just after you've checked.

The purpose of all mechanics is to put us where we have the best chance of seeing what we need to see. There's nothing sacred about the prescribed "spot on the floor". It is a guide, a best guess. The prime directive of mechanics is always "go where you need to go to see what you need to see." If you can see better higher up and/or closer in, then go there. I find higher and closer works better for me, so that's where I go.

You know where else you could go ? :cool:

To be roommates with Jurassic? :D

I don't see this as a big deal. A lot of us here work 3-man tableside on Friday night, and opposite on Sat afternoon. I don't see how this is any more confusing. I have one scheduled two man game this year, I'm sure we'll do just fine.

The only reason I have a problem with this mechanic (and I will not be doing this very often anyway) is because you have an official that is concentrating on other things asked to communicate with a coach. In 3 Person you have almost no role in administering a FT as the Trail. In a 2 Person you have responsibility for people on the line and the FT shooter. You do not have a lot of time to talk to a coach. And in my opinion the expectation is to have a coach talk to you and you do not have a lot of time to do so. If anything I would not be surprised if many coaches get more upset if you just ignore them and you are standing in front of them. Other than this the positioning is not a big deal, but it is not going to accomplish the goal without holding up the game in my opinion. Then again I will not have to worry about this very often if at all. I just do not see this making communication easier or better.

Peace

I'm glad IAABO states and provinces didn't adapt the new mechanic. I found for the few games I used it I wasn't paying as much attention to the players as I was the benches.

Why were you doing that? I don't think standing in a different spot causes one to not pay attention to the players.

As highlighted, constable was paying attention to the players. Just not as much attention as was being paid to the bench.

It makes perfect sense to me. I am guessing the bench is wanting more attention than the players and will usually accomplish just that. As I've said before, I am not a fan of this change.

I don't understand why this is any different than being in the trail position tableside during a live ball. How do you manage to pay attention to the players in that situation? Why is it any different during a free throw? :confused:

They are two very different situations. We tell coaches to hold their questions until a dead ball, and during/following reporting a foul is prime time for coaches to want to engage us. The argument is that placing us near the bench tends to prolong that engagement, thus providing a distraction you don't normally have.

I disagree - if anything coaches are more active and vocal during a live ball. There are distractions all the time. I just don't see standing tableside during a free throw as an issue at all, other than being able to see the subs. You just need to be able to take care of business, which is what is expected of us all the time. We can simply tell a coach to hold their questions till a dead ball once the free throw begins - then just focus on the free throw. What's the difference? It's not a big deal. That's my point.

The way I see it....
 

The problem with this mechanic is that, yes, it gets the T familiar with going table size as we do in 3-person mechanics, however, it makes the lead go opposite table when administering the free throw, which is directly opposite of what we do in 3-person. So I find myself backing out the wrong way once or twice a game.

Bottom line: they have obtained what they want at the Trail position at the expense of making the Lead do something different between 2 and 3-person mechanics.

These are small problems I know and easy to overcome, but there you go. It's not that I don't like it, it's just I see issues with it. Small issues, but issues none-the-less.

That's my two cents.

Most of us agree it's not a big deal. Experienced officials will make the transition with little or no effort or affect. Inexperienced officials won't recognize the difference.

My point is, it wasn't necessary to make the change and IMO will not do anything to improve communication or anything else. The only affect I anticipate is the small hinderances (switch/no switch, subs) that it will likely create.

It doesn't prolong anything. The lead is going to put the ball in play at the same time no matter which side of the court the T is on. If the coach is going to say something going opposite and being 20 feet further away isn't going to stop him.