New Two Person rotation?
 

What does everyone think of the new way they want us to rotate doing a 2-person crew? We try to do every game 3 person here in Ky, but their will be the occasion where we will have to do 2 and I think it will just be confusing. Especially having to go to the opposite side as the lead during a free throw.

What rotations have changed? The only thing I know that has changed is the lead going opposite table on a FT, but that is not a rotation (live ball movement), that is a switch (dead ball movement).

Peace

In CO the calling official that becomes the new T/C will go opposite in both 2 & 3 person games.

Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal. In three-man the reporting official stays table side, why not in two-man as well. I think it will actually let the movement of the officials work more smoothly during a free-throw situation. As far as being in closer proximity to coaches; we are the same way with three-man. If a coach wants a question answered, it’s actually simpler this way. If the coach wants to give me crap, I don’t have to walk as far to report the T. My biggest concern will be remembering to go opposite table as lead. After a few games, it’ll sink in.

It doesn’t matter to me either way.

I've worked two nights of basketball now. It's a little odd being trail and being table side...or for that matter lead and being opposite table. But with time I'm sure it will become more comfortable.

That is if they don't change it again... ;)

Just hard to sink in when you go back and forth between 2 and 3 person night in and night out. It was just an bad change I think, don't like it at all. Tried working in our girls junior high games the last couple weeks and hate it, but like everything else, will get used to it I guess.

Jritchie, I understand your frustrations due to CHANGE, but like other officials have mentioned we've been calling it this way in the state of Texas for years and there hasn't been any problems. Keep working at it and it will become as natural as giving a coach a technical. Peace!

I think it's actually closer to 3-man now, with staying tableside. At lead you have to remember to go to the other side of the lane, but if you're reporting you now stay there regardless.

That said, what I don't like about it is that in 3-man the trail's duties can be performed from a place nearer the division line and not potentially right in front of an upset coach. I routinely stay near the division line until a FT with live ball action afterwards unless I specifically want to communicate with a coach. In 2-man you'll have to be in front of the team bench regardless of the situation.

The problem is the reporting official only stays table side when FT's are to be attempted. That isn't anything like 3-person.

I've tried to think of all the reasons that the Fed would have to make this change and none of them seem worth while. IMO, the change is not an improvement. I hope they change it back in the future.

That being said, like most others, I don't think it is a big deal and it won't take much getting used to. Kind of like standing at the division line during timeouts for 2-person. If they (NFHS) wanted 2 and 3-person mechanics more similar, they should have left us on the blocks and the top of the key.

It's not really that big of a deal. I've found that some fellow officials don't realize that the calling official is supposed to stay as the Trail on shooting fouls. So if the Trail calls a shooting foul, there is no switch. Some people I've worked with still think you switch on every foul.

We've called 2-whistle this way for a couple of years (since I started back a couple of years ago I mean, may have been going on longer) so it's not that big a deal.

Making the transition to 3-whistle, however, is something else as the lead since I'm used to looking at the benches/scorer's table. I had an evaluator give me the cue "Show your butt to the bench" when you're the lead on FT. I'll remember it forever because of that (and subsequently where everyone else is supposed to be in 3-man) but still chuckle every time I think of it.

I've had no problem with the change. I've found myself working T more like a three person game, however. On the first shot I'm back near the center line, to better handle bringing in subs. Then I move down on the final shot.

The more things change...
 

It's funny to hear about the changes in where you go after a foul. When I first started calling BK in the 1970's, that is how we were all the time, unless you had a rotation because of where you took the ball out. And the hated "reverse mechanics" was frowned upon.

Then in the late 80's or early 90's there came this crazy idea for 3 man mechanics.....?????

Cadillac Position ..
 

Which is why we rotated to the "Cadillac position" as soon as possible, some sooner than others.

The one thing I don't like about this new mechanic is the late subs during the second free throw. Being opposite, I can better observe this.

I agree. The L can really help here.

I guess so. However, the L will have to look through a lot of players. I wish the Fed had made this an option.

Hmm.
 

You are at the division line on the first free throw attempt. Does this mean free-throw shooters never violate on the first attempt? Whether you like the change or not go to the correct place for all attempts. Violations can occur during any shot, and you at the division line missing a violation in a tied game with 3 seconds remaining could be a big deal. Just some food for thought.

How many of you are biting your tongues on the word 'switch'? ;)

Amen. We did a couple summer league games with this mechanic. It was wierd having subs sneak up behind you, since you really need to be scooted down a bit to watch the freethrow, you cant just sit there at the table. It will take getting used to. Not my favorite.

haha
 

This is great! (wink, wink) You know to communicate with the coaches better. I am sure they just want to thank us for the call. :)

How do you handle this in three-man?

CO is new trail....
 

The part of the change that I find troublesome is when the officials switch sometimes, but not others (shooting and non-shooting);

If Trail calls foul, reports - and is informed that Team A is not yet in bonus. The officials Switch. As the new trail is about administer the thrown in, the horn sounds, Team A is in the bonus. Do the officials switch back????

Now you are just causing trouble...

For a great view from Lead administering the throw, bring the ball into the lane, a step in front of the basket; before bouncing the ball to the shooter, glance at you partner and at the table.
Being in the lane may also help you communicate with all the players in all the lane spaces.

No. Fix it and stay put.

The trail's position is different for 2 person. The trail (two Person) should "be positioned just behind the free throw line extended and halfway between the nearer free throw lane line extended and the sideline".

Did anyone notice that the location for the C on 3-whistle and the T for 2-whistle are now written the same according to this year's Officials Manual? The diagrams always showed them approximately the same but previously the C (3-W) was to be just below the top of the key and the T (2-W) was to be just above the FT line extended. Weird. :confused:

My personal experience is that you need to be about the top of the key to see the two lane spaces on the far side or nearer the shooter. The old manual was written prior to moving the players up one position on the lane so I assumed there would be a change in the manual, it just wasn't the one that I was expecting.

Agreed. But, at T in 3-man, you look over your shoulder just before the lead administers the ball to check for subs. Why can’t you do the same thing in the new 2-man mechanic as T? It’s actually not as big of a head turn in 2-man.

Not trying to be contrary, but I've never had a problem with seeing the subs as L, even now that the players have moved up the lane. I'm in the lane a step or two up from the baseline. I've got a "open look" at the table through the gap between the shooter and the top defender on that side of the lane. I always make a quick check that everything is in order (proper spaces filled, feet not on the line, off-lane players outside 3PL, etc.) before putting the ball in play. Glancing at the table one last time is just part of my checks.

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.

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

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

New FT Mechanic
 

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!!!

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

What is the problem with that?

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). ;)

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

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?

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

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

Got it, thanks.

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.

Connecticut IAABO Switches ...
 

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.

Here, we switch only on shooting fouls. The calling official will go to table-side trail.

I've only had one game with it but I didn't like the change for the following reasons:
1. Harder to see subs
2. Talking or listening (or trying to ignore) a coach when I should be focused elsewhere on FT administration issues.
3. I had to T up a coach for being jackass about something I would have never heard had I been across the way.
4. Just felt awkward being that close to the bench and trying to watch for violations, count, etc.
JMO

Then you want to say that the calling official always becomes the trail official if there are free throws. Being table side or opposite doesn't have anything to do with switching.

The new mechanic entails that we no longer switch on every foul. Under the new mechanic if I'm trail and call a shooting foul, we won't switch. If I'm lead we will.

I generally know what I want to say and post accordingly, but thanks for participating.

I have my first game on Monday but I'm thinking the same thing. With the old rule I'm facing the table and can look for subs sitting in front of table or last second subs running up to the table, and see other activity at or near table. (ever have a scorer not use the horn quick enough for subs?) With new rule my back is to the table and I could have comments coming from who knows where...coach, player, parent...and I can't ID the joker. This might even make it more inviting for "unfavorable" comments from the peanut gallery. In most cases communication is fine and most civil discussions happen during dead balls.
I don't get it but I'll adjust. Would like to get opinions on this in February.

It's not a problem in 3-person; it won't be a problem in 2-person (or if there is a problem, it won't be casued by the mechanic).

I have not had a problem with this new mech. First half of the game the coach is wanting to choke you. Second half, he is giving you massages.