New Two Person rotation?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[Scratch85]

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.

[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