Your Signal Peeves?

[Welpe]

The thumbs to the shoulders mechanic reminds me too much of the WWE. Now if a partner belts out with a Macho Man "30 seconds...oooooohhhh yeah!"...that is a different story entirely!

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

he he he he ha ha giggle ha ha haw haw . . . lmao

Juulie called Mark a dork.

Wait a sec. I don't think that is the first time she has done that!

In Oregon, "dork" is a compliment.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

In Oregon, "dork" is a compliment.

Coming from an area where pronouncing 'r's is optional, I suppose it is pretty close to 'duck'.

[Zoochy]

I have not read all 108 posts but, my pet peeve signal is when the official swings his/her arm and points to the floor to indicate 'foul on the floor'. It can appear to be that the official is counting a shot that goes through the basket.
Why not just use the 'No Shot' mechanic?
I also do not like the 'Aligator clap' to indicate blocked shot. Geez

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I have not read all 108 posts but, my pet peeve signal is when the official swings his/her arm and points to the floor to indicate 'foul on the floor'. It can appear to be that the official is counting a shot that goes through the basket.
Why not just use the 'No Shot' mechanic?
I also do not like the 'Aligator clap' to indicate blocked shot. Geez

My pet peeve is an official calling the foul "on the floor" in the first place since 90% of the time the player has started his shooting motion.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

In Oregon, "dork" is a compliment.

No . . . "Big Dork" is a compliment!

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My pet peeve is an official calling the foul "on the floor" in the first place since 90% of the time the player has started his shooting motion.

Last week I, from C, call a foul for a handcheck, well before the offensive player's shooting motion started. He continued his motion and the shot, which wouldn't count anyway, went in. I'm saying "no shot, no shot", giving the handcheck signal. My partner at L repeatedly gives what everybody in the gym interpreted as "the basket was good" signal . I go to confer with him. He said, "I was signalling that it was 'on the floor'" . The coach of the shooter asks, after I reported the foul to the table, "What did you guys have to do, flip a coin?"
Didn't look good.
Enough of this "on the floor" stuff!

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My pet peeve is an official calling the foul "on the floor" in the first place since 90% of the time the player has started his shooting motion.

I am with you on that one. I saw that a few times tonight as I watched 3 Holiday tournament games. Everytime the player had habitually picked up the dribble and was trying to continue the attempt for a try. All were ruled foul "on the floor" Continuation rule 4-11 and fundamental 17.

[constable]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

The two fingered directional point.
The directional point that is angled toward the sky. Parallel to the ground looks SO much better.
Choppy, short visible counts.
Waving hands at the buzzer to end a period (think canceling a basket) when there was no shot attempted or the shot was in time but no good. Hand straight up in the air people.
I don't work college, but I think the NCAA women's visible count mechanic (up at the head, 45 degree angle) is simply ridiculous.

I see nothing wrong with the directional point with 2 fingers. IMHO it looks much sharper than using the entire hand.

I also agree the FIBA signal for a timeout and technical are too close for comfort.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by constable

I see nothing wrong with the directional point with 2 fingers. IMHO it looks much sharper than using the entire hand.

I also agree the FIBA signal for a timeout and technical are too close for comfort.

Again, too cool for room. Do you want to look sharp or do the right mechanic?

Another pet peeve. Inbounding, and ref covers side of mouth, turns like he's sneezing or coughing and whistles.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Another pet peeve. Inbounding, and ref covers side of mouth, turns like he's sneezing or coughing and whistles.

That's to avoid blowing the whistle right in the ear of the inbounder.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's to avoid blowing the whistle right in the ear of the inbounder.

You have a flair for the obvious Robert.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Do you want to look sharp or do the right mechanic?

My signal pet peeve is people who don't understand that all mechanics, including signals, exist to serve us. Not the other way round.

Signaling mechanics facilitate communication, on multiple levels. On the surface they communicate our decisions. How the signals are executed communicates deeper, more important information. A sharp looking signal communicates confidence, experience, control. A shabby looking one conveys the opposite.

With signals, the mechanic isn't "right" if it doesn't look sharp. And since we all differ a little physically, we don't all look the same way when executing the same signal. What looks sharp from you may look terrible from me. So a slight variation on any signal that still clearly conveys the surface information, but which an official can execute with much better presentation is better IMHO.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

My signal pet peeve is people who don't understand that all mechanics, including signals, exist to serve us. Not the other way round.

Signaling mechanics facilitate communication, on multiple levels. On the surface they communicate our decisions. How the signals are executed communicates deeper, more important information. A sharp looking signal communicates confidence, experience, control. A shabby looking one conveys the opposite.

With signals, the mechanic isn't "right" if it doesn't look sharp. And since we all differ a little physically, we don't all look the same way when executing the same signal. What looks sharp from you may look terrible from me. So a slight variation on any signal that still clearly conveys the surface information, but which an official can execute with much better presentation is better IMHO.

Well spoken, and very true.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

My signal pet peeve is people who don't understand that all mechanics, including signals, exist to serve us. Not the other way round.

Signaling mechanics facilitate communication, on multiple levels. On the surface they communicate our decisions. How the signals are executed communicates deeper, more important information. A sharp looking signal communicates confidence, experience, control. A shabby looking one conveys the opposite.

With signals, the mechanic isn't "right" if it doesn't look sharp. And since we all differ a little physically, we don't all look the same way when executing the same signal. What looks sharp from you may look terrible from me. So a slight variation on any signal that still clearly conveys the surface information, but which an official can execute with much better presentation is better IMHO.

Everyone has their own 'game'. I agree with you 100% regarding differing physically and what may look sharp etc. That said, I don't care for the thumbs for a 30. Much ado about nothing really

Just me.