NFHS - FT mechanic rational?
 

Can anyone explain the rational of watching the players on the opposite lane line?

So you have the proper angle to make the call if one of those player breaks the FT lane plane or touches the lane before the ball hits the rim/backboard.

That's the rationale for watching across. The rationale for not watching across is that after watching for violations you have to immediately shift your focus back to your own side to watch for contact, only by then the action has already begun and you're playing catch up. I pregame that my partner and I watch our own sides for violations and fouls. What can I say? I'm a rebel.

hmmm. unless I am right on the lane line I don't know how I would see for 100% sure that the plane was broke.

Since we're not right on the lane line, then I don't see (no pun intended) what is different from looking at the front of the players (opposite) or looking at the back of the player (same side). And I sure can tell if the touched the lane.

I'm with BITS on this one.

Just Ask Johnny Cash, He'll Tell You About A Rebel ...
 

No your not. "Johnny Yuma was a rebel. He roamed through the West."

Back In The Saddle: Do you carry a double-barreled shotgun with a sawed-off stock and barrel?

http://www.womenwritersblock.com/images/5Rebel.jpg

Can You Hear Barbra Singing In The Background ???
 

It hasn't always been this way. I may be a little fuzzy on this, my manuals only go back fourteen years, I've been doing this for twenty-nine years, and a few years ago we switched from NFHS mechanics, to IAABO mechanics, but this is what I recall.

Once upon a time, in a land far away, we were responsible only for our side of the lane. One thing I know for sure is that once we became responsible for the opposite side of the lane, we were responsible for the entire opposite side of the lane, and not, in any way responsible for our side of the lane.

Now as the lead, we have the first lane space on our side, and the entire opposite side of the lane. As the trail, we have the opposite side of the lane, except the first lane space. I wish the NFHS, or IAABO, would allow us to just watch one entire side, and not have us watch "fractions" of a side, and I don't care if it's the entire opposite side, like we did a few years ago, or the entire same side, like we did once upon a time, in a land far away.

Can one of you veterans confirm my recollection of same side responsibilities, or have I just described a fictitious fairy tale?

It's a violation to break the lane with your foot. But in 20 years of calling, every player I've ever seen do this put his foot down in the lane. If you can't make that call, then you should probably hang'em up.


There's no way you can know if the plane is broken by standing behind the line on your side. It goes against everything that's ever been taught with regard to getting the proper angle. When you administer a throw-in, I guess you stand behind the thrower to know whetehr he's broken the boundary plane or not.

Oh well, that just means you're both wrong. If you can't get wide enough to see the players you're responsible for during the FT and make a foul call after restrictions, you might won't to get your feet out of the concrete and move.

Personally, I don't limit myself to one side of the lane or the other on rebounding action. I get an angle where I can see the entire play. I'll yield to my partner if he makes the call but I'm not going to ignore the foul.

Ah, Billy...that is the mechanic. Since there' no longer a player in the first space, you are now responsible for the entire opposite side.

Not by the book its not see page 58

Then possibly that's a state change, because that's what we were told at our state clinic this past week. We did not receive an Officials Manual this year.

Primary Coverage Areas For Free Throws ???
 

Would you limit yourself to one side of the lane or the other on a lane line violation that you're 100% sure occurred? Let's say that you're the trail, watching the free thrower, and the opposite side of the lane, except for the first spot, and your partner, in the lead position, passes on a 100% for sure violation by the player in that first marked lane space that you observe? Or, as the lead, you observe a 100% for sure violation by a player in the second marked lane space on your side, that your partner, as the trail passes on? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sorry I forgot to add blue font, of course I'm not advocating needing to stand right on the line. My OP originally was trying to find the rational for looking opposite, when in NCAAM they stay the same side. Why the difference? You're right I must not be very good. :rolleyes:

NFHS officials manual 2009-2011

If I'm not going to pass on the foul, why would I pass on a violation? :)

Yes, in the OP you were. In your reply to me, you were indicating your disagreement with the mechanic.

Yes, I'm aware you were referring to the 2009-20011 Officials Manual. They doesn't change the fact I didn't get one or what we were told at our state clinic.

BTW, it's not rational, it's rationale.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate." (Cool Hand Luke)
 

Yes there is. What we used to call the first marked lane space was changed last year to being called "the lane area from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks". What we used to call the second marked lane space is now called the first marked lane space.

NFHS 8-1-4: During a free throw, lane spaces may be occupied as follows:
b. The lane areas from the end line up to, and including, the neutral-zone marks, shall remain vacant.
c. The first marked lane spaces on each side of the lane, above and adjacent to the neutral-zone marks, shall be occupied by opponents of the free thrower. No teammate of the free thrower shall occupy either of these marked lane spaces.

IAABO Responsibilities Are The Same ...
 

2009-11 NFHS BASKETBALL OFFICIALS MANUAL
2.2.3 Free Throws:
B. Lead Official:
6. Watch the first space on the near lane line and all the spaces on the opposite lane line for violations.
C. Trail Official:
5. Observe the thrower and top two spaces on the opposite lane line for violations.

Mea cupla.

Then why did you imply it was a "state" thing since you knew I was referring to the NFHS book?

Billy, get real. You know exactly what I was referring to. You can call it what you want but you and I both know that there's still a space where there's always been a space and no one stands in it.

WTF are you talking about?

I stated we were told in our state meeting this past week that we would be responsible for the entire opposite line.

You then stated that was contrary to the Officials Manual.

I then stated that it must be a state adoption and that I didn't receive an Officials Manual this year. Therefore, I have no idea what this year's Manual states.

No Offense Offered ...
 

BktBallRef: I apologize if you took my post to be sarcastic, but it wasn't intended to be sarcastic. I was serious. Last year I got an IAABO refresher exam question wrong because of this problem of what to call what was previously called the first marked lane space. If I can recall correctly, the question read: A defensive player is in the first marked lane space. The official calls a violation. Is the official correct. I answered no, that there was no violation, because, according to the new rule wording last year, the first marked lane space was above the neutral zone, and the defensive player was where he belonged. IAABO claimed the correct answer was that the official was correct. I appealed the question and answer and was told that IAABO still considered the area below the neutral zone to be the first marked lane space, because it was closest to the endline. I thought that you, like IAABO last year, were calling the area below the neutral zone the first marked lane space, which, no matter what IAABO says, is not the first marked lane space, by rule, and I didn't want the error to continue to circulate.

Entire Side, Good Change ...
 

In my opinion, this is a good change. I wish that we would do this in Connecticut.

I believe that the manual comes out only once every other year. The present NFHS manual is labeled 2009-11, so your manual from last year should have the up to date NFHS "national" mechanics.

Please note that anything I post with regard to mechanics is based on three man mechanics, not two man mechanics

We haven't worked anything but three man for varsity games in NC in 19 years.

States still using two man need to catch up with the 21st century.

To be fair, I am not sure how big your state is when it comes to population. Some of this is a financial issue, not a style issue.

Peace

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. It makes no difference to me what the 2009-2011 manual says. I will do as I'm told.

It's nothing that couldn't be overcome with some give and take if people were truly interested in doing what's best for the game.

Sad, But True ...
 

Connecticut is certainly behind almost all other states in terms of three person games. One reason is due to economics. Even though Connecticut is one of the wealthiest states, local towns, and cities, are always arguing with the state over who is supposed to fund education. Property taxes, which are the most common method of funding local education here in Connecticut, are already through the roof. Secondly, maybe because we are one of the wealthiest states, many don't need the second income that be be obtained by officiating, and we simply don't have enough officials to cover three person games. Hell, during influenza season, we barely have enough officials to cover our Friday night games, our biggest basketball night of the week here in Connecticut. Many officials pull double duty on Friday, doing a junior varsity, varsity, doubleheader, or doing a freshman, or middle school game, in the late afternoon, and doing a junior varsity game at night.

In a simlair topic, this will be the first season, you read right, the first season, that we will be getting paid for most preseason scrimmages.

I agree with you in theory.....but.....
 

The reason I said this is because I know by population my state is bigger. There are 778 schools according to the IHSA. That means if they all play, this involves 389 games if they all play on one night (without the consideration of gender). You need 1167 different officials to work that night. Now that is not very realistic and not going to happen that way, but this means just our state has a lot of schools and it is hard to find officials to work all the games

There are not that many basketball licenses in the state of Illinois. And this is without consideration of financial situations and standards and logistics to make that happen in scheduling. And for the record, most games in Illinois are 3 Person.

Peace

Clear ???
 

How would it be clear to me that you don't care what the 2009-2011 manual says when in three previous posts you made it clear to the Forum that you don't have the new manual? If you don't care about what's in the manual, and I believe that you don't, then why refer to the fact that you don't have it on three occasions. If you don't care about what's in the manual, then it shouldn't matter whether you have the current manual, or not. That's the part that I was unclear about.

Exactly. Most games in Illnois are 3 Person, which means it wouldn't be a stretch for the ISHA to require 3 Person. Games would be scheduled on different night. JV officials who are ready would be moved up faster. It actually adds a few years to each official's career.

Fiscally, there's no reason to expect an official to be paid as much to work a 3 man game as he is paid in a 2 man game. It's not physically as exerting and demanding and it makes the game easier to call. I spoke to a NY state official several years ago. He told me he made $83 for a varsity 2 man game. He said that was one of the main reasons the officials in his area wouldn't push for 3 man. I'm not saying that's true everywhere but I've heard those views expressed from others ijn similiar situations.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know ???
 

Good point, and one, as an official in a state that does not use three person mechanics on any regular basis, that I have a question about.

When a state, or local region, goes from two person to three person, does the total cost of the officials for that game increase, or does the normal two person total fee get split three ways instead of two ways?

Also, shouldn't the total fee increase a little, since the school is getting a better officiated game?

Are there states, or local regions, where officials in a three person game received a check for a normal two person fee, but the school just passed out three of these checks instead of just two? Now that scenario could be quite expensive.

The facts that I don't have the current manual and that I don't care what it says regarding this situation are two different issues.

I stated that I didn't have a Manual because the OP pointed out that the Manual was different than what I was told at our clinic. Therefore, I did know what the manual said and did not know that this was a state association instruction.

I stated I don't care what the Manual says because I will have to abide by the state association's difference.

I really don't see why that's so difficult to udnerstand.

Also, I would love to ask you some questions regarding officiating scheduling in CT. But at this point, my head is throbbing from having talked to you today. So I'll just excuse myself from the thread.

All post season games are already 3 Person. I do not know what they need to require. It only hurts the schools or conferences that use 2 Person for all their varsity games (Which is so small I can only tell you on one that does not do it for all their games. And that conference uses 3 Person for all their "big games."). And I do not think it has anything to do with guys moving up.

I do not know any conference that does not pay more for a varsity 3 Person game than they do for a 2 Person game. That just would not be acceptable. Now a lot of lower level games are double headers, but you do not get paid more than a single varsity game to a single lower level game. Not going to happen.

Peace

Get Well Soon ...
 

Sorry to hear that. I sure that my ex-wife, and my former students, would agree with you. Just take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

I'd be pleased to share with you any information that I can provide about scheduling officials here in the Constitution State. When your head stops throbbing, you can discuss it with me here on the Forum, or you could private message me your real email address and we can correspond that way.

Regular season is controlled by the conferences or the tournaments. The IHSA plays no role in those games and how many officials should or should not work.

Secondly, all our games have a check for all the officials that are supposed to work. If it is 3 officials, then three officials get paid. I cannot imagine it being any other way. And this is why I say that trying to expand from 2 to 3 for all games might be difficult for some areas. Because 3 Person is required in the post season, schools follow because it only makes sense to see the same officials in the regular season that you see in the post season.

Peace

Maybe These Questions Are Clearer ???
 

I'm sorry. I don't think that my questions were clear enough.

Let's say that a state, or a conference, is thinking about going from a two person game to a three person game. Let's also say that previously, each official in the two man game received $50, for a total cost of $100 to the school for the game. In going to a three person game, would each official receive $33 each, for the same total cost of $100 to the school for the three person game as for the two person game? Or would each official get $50 each for a total cost to the school of $150?

No, you pay them each the same fee. Or at least that is what I would expect. And considering what they pay others that have nothing to do with most games, I do not see why this is a problem. I do not ever remember a fee reduction unless the school had a double header policy for the officials. But that was the case with the smaller schools that did that, I never heard of the larger schools (outside of the Chicago Public League) making their officials to work both games.

Peace

Highway Robbery ...
 

So if I received a check for $50 for doing a two person game last year, and assuming no increase in fees over the off season, and the state, or conference, decides to go with three person game this year, then I can expect the same $50 check this year, only this year it's for a three person game? Sounds expensive, $100 for a two person game last year, $150 for a three person game this year. How did you guys in three person states get this first started? Did you threaten to go on strike?

That would be reasonable if the 2-man pay is reasonable. In Oregon, we only recent caught up with our neighbooring states and are still below the national average. To go 3-man and split the game fees 3 ways would be an insult. I wouldn't expect the same pay for 3 as two but I wouldn't expect a big drop either. It may be less physically demanding but it does still take a lot of time...up to 1 hour travel, arrive 1 hour before the game, 1.5 hours for the game, a little time after the game and up to an hour drive home....that is up to 4.5 hours of time. Even if the drive is half that (as is more commonly the case), it is still 3.5 hours total. Once you take out expenses, that is under $10 an hour....and they think we should get less???

Here each official makes the same per game in 3-man as they do in 2-man. Varsity games are $55 and JV games $45 (Same 2 or 3 officials work both on the same night).

So if a school or conference hires three officials, they pay them all $45 for the JV game and pay them all $55 for the Varsity game. Same with two officials.

Billy,

I really do not know that there was much issue with the schools. For one this was done years ago. We have had 3 Person for all playoff games since 98. Schools in many cases were using 3 Person for many of their games anyway. I do not think schools took this position like you suggest. Also basketball is a revenue sport and they pay more for a single football game for officials than any basketball game. I did not see an issue with fee that big of a deal. The smaller schools as I said would sometimes try to get officials to work a JV/Varsity double header and the money would not be as much as if they paid the JV officials separate, but that has gone away in many cases too. But those were schools that assigned their own games for the most part, and if you did not pay a high enough fee, officials would on their own not go there. And the market in a sense dictated the fees going up. Because schools and conferences wanted to not have officials not go to their places just because of money alone. Basketball is a pretty big deal in this state. It is not difficult to come up with an extra $50 in your example. But so you know, most fees are in the $60 range now and some are higher.

Peace

Three Person In The Land Of Steady Habits ...
 

JRutledge: Good, informative post. Thanks. From your post I can see two reasons why I'm having trouble wrapping my arms around this three person issue, and, again, I'm in a, for the most part, two person state.

First. Individual schools in Connecticut do not set fees for officials. There is no competitive bidding. They all pay the same fee, as set by our state high school athletics governing body. So we all happily go where our assignment commissioner sends us. Travel never becomes an issue, because we have different assignment commissioners for each county. My longest trip is 50 miles, one way, and I'm seldom sent to that school. Many years ago we even stopped negotiating with the state body, and now we automatically accept a yearly fee increase equal to the average teacher pay increase across the entire state, so, for example, if the average increase in teachers' pay, statewide, is 2.5%, then we will get an automatic 2.5% increase in our game fees. No more yearly negotiating sessions in smoke filled rooms.

Second. I believe that Connecticut basketball officials may be some of the highest paid basketball officials in the nation. This is probably due to the general wealth of the state, as well as the high cost of living in the state. The varsity basketball fee for 2009-10 is $86.63. The subvarsity fee, which not only includes junior varsity games, but also includes freshman, and middle school, games, is $56.18. Only ice hockey gets more, $90.00 varsity, $58.00 subvarsity. To add a third official to a varsity basketball game would mean an additional $86.63 game cost to the school, meaning an additional cost of $866.30 over a ten game home schedule, and that's only for varsity three person games, it doesn't account for junior varsity three person games. To compound economic matters, we are about to enter our first year with mandatory fees, dictated by our state high school athletics governing body, for preseason scrimmages, I believe in the $50.00 range. Previously we officiated preseason scrimmages free of charge, or for some small, undetermined ahead of time, form of compensation (T-shirt, sandwich, pizza, $10, $20, etc.) that was decided by each individual school. This will now add an additional cost to the school's basketball officiating budget.

Connecticut may eventually catchup. Some of the big city schools in the southern part of the state occasionally use three officials for some of their "big rival" games, and three person crews are mandatory for the state quarterfinals, semifinals, and finals, in all three (school size) classes. The funny thing about the state tournament three person games, is that some of our best officials, that are selected by coaches, to officiate the state tournament, have litttle, or no, experience with three person mechanics, so we often see a lot of finger pointing as partners help each other in regard to where, and how, to switch. In some cases there is an NCAA official on the crew that kind of takes charge. Last season our local board had its first ever three person mechanics training session. You heard me right, first ever, in 2008. Only about a twenty officials, from a local board of over 250 officials, attended the session. I'm sure that the poor turnout for this training session was due to lack of confidence that Connecticut will be going to a lot of three person games anytime soon.

By the way, it's not they doesn't, it's that doesn't. we all make typos. Lighten up

Only for rivalry games.

Violation or Rebounding Foul - priority?
 

From the POE and the mechanics change, it appears that the NFHS is more concerned with being able to see the lane violation than being able to referee the rebounding action. As lead looking across the lane you are straghtlined for that rebound foul. Have no idea if player was pushed from behind or if he himself jumped forward.

I think the NCAA mechanic of same side is a better situation. Rather miss a lane violation for breaking the plane (how many of these actually get called?) than a rebounding foul. Looking at same side we can definitely see if a player actuallly stepped into the lane prior to the ball hitting the rim and that is more likely to lead to a violation call.

Here in CO there is a separate pay scale for 3 vs 2. The school still pays more over all for a three person game than for a two person game, but the officals will get paid slightly less.

At the JV level, it was $35 and $41 last season. At the varsity level, I believe it was $47 and $55. I'm not sure about the two person varsity as I haven't worked a two person varsity game since I left Iowa. They do have a state standard, however.

The Centennial State ...
 

Sounds reasonable, especially in these harsh economic times.