New Two Person rotation?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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.

Then I disagree that this is the best thing to do. At least in my area we do not use 2 Person for most varsity games (very rare when this happens) and now you want basically younger and inexperienced officials that have a hard enough time talking to coaches, putting them in a place where a coach expects some conversation. And unlike the trail official in a 3 person, the trail in a 2 person has stuff to do. You cannot have them looking behind themselves and talking to anyone when the ball is live. And during a live ball there is not much dialog either. Now we are going to have an expectation of dialog that is going to delay the game more or cause further conflict when an official decides to rightfully so not talk to a coach while they are officiating live action. At least during other parts of the game, coaches might understand this. Now the calling official is in front of a coach, back to the table, cannot see substitutions as well. The lead official also is possibly screened by the table as well. The NF makes it clear that an official is not to turn around during a live ball to acknowledge a timeout out, now we have to turn away from action to talk to a coach? It is not that it is a big deal; it is just silly to put the officials in a bad situation. This is not going to make things better for anyone.

Peace

[Smitty]

I don't know that there's an "expectation of dialogue" or not. I certainly would rather have the coach talking to me within earshot than yelling across the court if I were opposite the table. I am sure there are coaches who will try to take advantage of this position, certainly at the lower levels. But those are the same coaches who are going to be a pain the whole game anyway. You just have to take care of your business, just like during every other part of the game. I have been using this mechanic all summer and into the fall and have not had any problems with any coaches. The only issue has been seeing the subs waiting. I'm not trying to validate the new mechanic - I'm just saying it's not as big a deal as people are making it out to be, for the reasons they are using.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I don't know that there's an "expectation of dialogue" or not. I certainly would rather have the coach talking to me within earshot than yelling across the court if I were opposite the table. I am sure there are coaches who will try to take advantage of this position, certainly at the lower levels. But those are the same coaches who are going to be a pain the whole game anyway. You just have to take care of your business, just like during every other part of the game. I have been using this mechanic all summer and into the fall and have not had any problems with any coaches. The only issue has been seeing the subs waiting. I'm not trying to validate the new mechanic - I'm just saying it's not as big a deal as people are making it out to be, for the reasons they are using.

A coach talking across the court is asking for trouble. And if everyone can hear them, now we have something we can easily handle and take action with. A coach behind you might not be so obvious and we know coaches lie about what they say and how they say things. And during a FT is just not a good time in my opinion. And considering that about the only people that will be doing this in my area are younger/inexperience/lower level officials, I am not a fan of this mechanic. And considering the times we get players just entering the court, I do not like the fact both officials are not in the best spots to recognize a sub at the table or coming to the table. I also do not think anyone is making a big deal out of this. I think they do not buy the change and the reason the change was made. Remember the NF claims this was changed to help communication between officials and coaches. If they just wanted to change that would have been a better explanation in my opinion.

Peace

[chanmancut]

It's not the same as a three person mechanic in the sense that the referee reporting the foul stands, as a general rule, at the 28 ft. line in 3 man. In two man you'll have a coach so close to you he'll be in your officiating uniform as T during a FT. It sounds like there quite a few guys that have done it this way for a while tho and there haven't been any problems, so we'll see. I haven't done any games this way yet and I'm a little skeptical that the # of T's thrown will go up, but we'll see! I'm glad to get you guys' info on this; I was afraid it would be like the timeout mechanic where one ref stands at halfcourt and the other stands where the ball was to be inbounded. Our association scrapped that one after 2 weeks!!! Thanks guys!!!

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by chanmancut

In two man you'll have a coach so close to you he'll be in your officiating uniform as T during a FT.

Where do you stand at? You should be no where near the coach.

Originally Posted by chanmancut

I was afraid it would be like the timeout mechanic where one ref stands at halfcourt and the other stands where the ball was to be inbounded. Our association scrapped that one after 2 weeks!!! Thanks guys!!!

What is the problem with that?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by chanmancut

I was afraid it would be like the timeout mechanic where one ref stands at halfcourt and the other stands where the ball was to be inbounded. Our association scrapped that one after 2 weeks!!! Thanks guys!!!

Like LDUB said, what is wrong with that? Of all the different tiimeout mechanics that have been around through the years, this is, by far, the best one. You should never find your self in the coach's lap during a timeout where the ball is to be thrown in near the bench...you just step into the court far enough to get away from them.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Like LDUB said, what is wrong with that? Of all the different tiimeout mechanics that have been around through the years, this is, by far, the best one. You should never find your self in the coach's lap during a timeout where the ball is to be thrown in near the bench...you just step into the court far enough to get away from them.

Try stepping out on the court far enough to line up with your partner(s).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Where do you stand at? You should be no where near the coach.

Yes and no. You are not right next to a coach, but you are still about 10 feet away on this side of the court. In three person the trail is even further away and coaches feel compelled to yell and scream in many situations to officials in the trial position. I do not think this is a tragic situation or that the world is going to turn on it's axis as a result of this change. I just think it is not going to accomplish the goal to help communication. Even in 3 person the going table side for fouls has limits to communication.

Peace

[IowaMike]

For two person mechanics, I liked switching on every foul. I'm not in favor of the new mechanic putting the trail tableside after every foul; I don't see any good reason to make the change. However, I don't think it's that big of a deal either and will adapt accordingly. I still do some two person working lower level games. As for enhancing communication, it won't with me. Once the ball is at the shooters disposal, I'm not talking to the coaches anymore. I do feel it is different than three person, where the trail really doesn't have much to do other than bring in subs; I don't have a problem talking to a coach in this situation working three person. I didn't think anything was broke with two person mechanics, so why make the change?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by IowaMike

For two person mechanics, I liked switching on every foul.

Isn't the current official NFHS mechanic to switch on every foul?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Isn't the current official NFHS mechanic to switch on every foul?

The new mechanic is that calling official remains table-side.

[Welpe]

Got it, thanks.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The new mechanic is that calling official remains table-side.

Switching means switching lead and trail. It doesn't matter what side of the court the officials end up on.

The only thing that has changed is that the calling official will alway be the trail if free throws are awarded. If there are no free throws then the officials should switch.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Switching means switching lead and trail. It doesn't matter what side of the court the officials end up on.

The only thing that has changed is that the calling official will alway be the trail if free throws are awarded. If there are no free throws then the officials should switch.

Luke: I know exactly what switching is. The old mechanic was that officials switch on every foul. That is no longer the mechanic, which was my main point to Welpe.

[BillyMac]

Here in the Constitution State we use IAABO mechanics. IAABO has decided not to follow the NFHS mechanics change regarding not switching on shooting fouls, so we will switch on all fouls.

Oddly, for the past several years we had a "Connecticut only" (not in compliance with IAABO international mechanics) mechanic to not make any long switches in the backcourt where there was no change of possession, or direction, i.e., if a point guard was dribbling upcourt, in the backcourt, and a defensive player fouled the dribbler attempting a steal, then we didn't switch positions. The odd thing about this is that this season they took away the "no long switch" exception, and we will be switching on all fouls. I have no idea why the Connecticut interpreters changed back to switching all the time, maybe because some officials were getting lazy, or confused, and not switching when they were supposed to, like on a player control foul, or on some rebounding fouls.