Late game new 2-person FT mechanic
 

This happened a few weeks ago.

Double bonus. I'm trail. Defense is losing, looking to foul. Quick one, I call the foul. I go to my new spot as the trail, tableside. Free throws. Losing team comes down, scores quickly.

Repeat the paragraph above six times.

I called the last eight fouls in the game against the team that was trailing.

In retrospect, I felt like I should've forced a switch somewhere in there. Didn't seem to bother anyone, but I felt like I had to work way too hard. :D

Anyone else have this happen yet?

I'm not a fan of the new mechanic partly for this reason. Switching every time just seems better to me. This new mechanic means you sometimes switch (no free throws or lead calling foul w/free throws) or sometimes you don't (trail calling foul w/free throws). It just hasn't felt comfortable for me yet.

To be honest, the most awkward part for me has been working the FT. In 3-person, you only have to worry about the table and subs and then working the rebound.

In 2-person, you feel like you need to signal the table on the number of shots (with your back to it), count on the FT, raise your hand, step down, and still have the table responsibilities -- all this was easier when you were naturally looking at the table from opposite side.

All in all, though, it's not really a huge deal. We haven't long-switched on a foul going the other way or any back court fouls in years, so not switching isn't a huge deal for me.

I don't care for the new mechanic for pretty much the same reasons Rich listed - glad Oregon is not using it.

Same thing has happened to me in 3-man varsity games.

Being closer to the benches, having to look over my shoulder for subs, those don't bother me. But I have noticed numerous times this season where I feel like I've become "stuck" at one end and am making all the calls. I now pre-game that if I've had the last two fouls and gotten "stuck" at T, on the next one I'm going to force a switch.

I'll be interested to hear if the NFHS has anything to say about how wildly successful the new mechanic has been (or hasn't been). From my experience so far the anticipated positive of being nearer the coaches to address concerns has been outweighed by the actual negative of getting "stuck" at T thus giving the impression that, at times, one official is "calling the whole game" and reducing the benefits gained by switching making it more likely that one official really is calling the whole game, at least at one end.

Isn't this the part of the thread where someone says "you're just afraid of talking to coaches"? :cool:

Yes, it has happened to me in several games already this year where I'm the Trail after the ball has been throw in in the BC and the losing team fouls immediately. We go to the other end and I stand table side 4-5 times in a row.

Yep, happened in our second 2 person game this year. We discussed after the game that in the future we might force a switch after about 4 or 5 in a row.

I don't mind the new mechanic; one real positive is that we are ready for a free throw a lot quicker now. Not having to wait for the T to report the foul then come back across the court before bouncing the ball to the shooter. A few seconds saved here and there all help the game move faster - especially on those foul fests we love so much!

I'd force it after 2 or 3.

The congrats on the missed FT by the shooter's teammates take much more time than the trail getting into position opposite table.

No!
 

... oh wait a minute...

I agree completely! :)

Next time I will force a switch at an appropriate time.

Absolutely!
 

These kids are watching too much tv! :(

I think in your situation where team is trying to foul its not as bad as it would be earlier in the game where you get "stuck" calling three or four fouls in a row. In that case I would force a switch at some point.

December 17th, Thursday, I was traveling in Portland (and Eugene) and I saw a high school game at Clackamas High School. Good job by the officials, but I wondered about their mechanic of "opposite table." Thanks for the clarification.