Words can't describe.... this video.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Giving a signal does clarify what he saw and why he did not make the call. It might not be authorized, but we used to give a single for kicking the ball and that was at one time not authorized, but still illegal to kick the ball.

This remark pertains to the "alligator chop" to signal that the official saw a block rather than a foul.

I know that this topic has been discussed, but I wanted to respond to this thought. NFHS will not authorize the chop, because in the season it did so the number of "blops" (block/chop?) or foul/no-foul double calls would increase 100-fold.

It's one thing if one official passes on a foul and another calls it. It's quite another to have conflicting signals on a play. The latter looks bad, IMO.

Even apart from the question of whether we need a signal for a no-call, for this reason using the "chop" is bad mechanics.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This remark pertains to the "alligator chop" to signal that the official saw a block rather than a foul.

I know that this topic has been discussed, but I wanted to respond to this thought. NFHS will not authorize the chop, because in the season it did so the number of "blops" (block/chop?) or foul/no-foul double calls would increase 100-fold.

It's one thing if one official passes on a foul and another calls it. It's quite another to have conflicting signals on a play. The latter looks bad, IMO.

Even apart from the question of whether we need a signal for a no-call, for this reason using the "chop" is bad mechanics.

Well I am not talking about this from a NF perspective. Not all states use NF mechanics like my state does not (to the letter that is). I am simply stating that the signal alone is not a bad signal. When it is used can be. I have no problem if someone is using this as clarification. I have used it in other situations when no possibility of another call is at issue. In other words, I have used it when the play in question is completely over. I use the tip signal on out of bounds calls often to clarify what I saw. I really do not care if the NF or anyone else likes it; I am communicating something to everyone without having to yell across the court.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well I am not talking about this from a NF perspective. Not all states use NF mechanics like my state does not (to the letter that is). I am simply stating that the signal alone is not a bad signal. When it is used can be. I have no problem if someone is using this as clarification. I have used it in other situations when no possibility of another call is at issue. In other words, I have used it when the play in question is completely over. I use the tip signal on out of bounds calls often to clarify what I saw. I really do not care if the NF or anyone else likes it; I am communicating something to everyone without having to yell across the court.

Peace

1. It is a bad signal, for the reason I gave (your personal use of it notwithstanding).

2. Bringing in the "tipped ball" signal to this discussion is a famous Rutledge red herring: there's no comparable reason to discontinue using that signal.

3. The issue is not whether the signal communicates something, but whether it's the best way to communicate that content. Specifically, is it better than the mere absence of a whistle? Given its drawbacks, the answer is no, IMO.

4. You are, of course, free to ignore this reasoning and to keep doing it your way. That's not a reason supporting your view, though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1. It is a bad signal, for the reason I gave (your personal use of it notwithstanding).

2. Bringing in the "tipped ball" signal to this discussion is a famous Rutledge red herring: there's no comparable reason to discontinue using that signal.

3. The issue is not whether the signal communicates something, but whether it's the best way to communicate that content. Specifically, is it better than the mere absence of a whistle? Given its drawbacks, the answer is no, IMO.

4. You are, of course, free to ignore this reasoning and to keep doing it your way. That's not a reason supporting your view, though.

To say something is a "bad mechanic" is very subjective in the first place. And to use the "approval" of one organization is even worse IMO. I remember hearing that same logic about the "not closely guarded" signal as well because it was not approved. Then for some reason the NF adopted it like they do a lot of other mechanics other levels use. And honestly I would not be surprised in a year or two a "tip signal" is approved considering the NCAA allows both Men's and Women's sides to use that signal. And I see officials use it all the time.

Now I did not say anything about whether it was a good mechanic or not. That was not the point. The point was that in this situation right or wrong the use of not use of a signal was not going to make that much difference as to whether the coach went off in my opinion. Coaches go off no matter what we do or do not do. And you can be sarcastic all you like, but just read this site, there are all kinds of coaches going off and a signal was not the cause.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

To say something is a "bad mechanic" is very subjective in the first place. And to use the "approval" of one organization is even worse IMO. I remember hearing that same logic about the "not closely guarded" signal as well because it was not approved. Then for some reason the NF adopted it like they do a lot of other mechanics other levels use. And honestly I would not be surprised in a year or two a "tip signal" is approved considering the NCAA allows both Men's and Women's sides to use that signal. And I see officials use it all the time.

Now I did not say anything about whether it was a good mechanic or not. That was not the point. The point was that in this situation right or wrong the use of not use of a signal was not going to make that much difference as to whether the coach went off in my opinion. Coaches go off no matter what we do or do not do. And you can be sarcastic all you like, but just read this site, there are all kinds of coaches going off and a signal was not the cause.

Peace

I was not sarcastic or ironic in any way. Bringing in yet another Rutledge red herring (not closely guarded) does not improve your case: the reason the "blocked shot" mechanic is bad does not apply to that signal either.

Who said anything about coaches going off? It's a bad signal because it opens the door to double calls (foul/no-foul situations). I invite you either to address that point or simply to assert that you intend to use a bad mechanic as you see fit.

[doubleringer]

2 good T's. On the first, I agree that whomever the official was that was nearest the coach should have taken care of business himself. As far as the second, the guy was on the radar for his actions early on, he must have said too much. The new acting head coach can come out and attend to his player. The second would have been a more solid T if the same official didn't have to clean up after his partner that didn't assess the T when he should have.

As far as the foul tip mechanic discussion. I'm not a fan. I had a partner use it on a play in double coverage areas. He's signalling "foul tip" or a clean block, I'm coming in as C with a foul from the back side. We were in the soup because of his extra communication. If there isn't a whistle, that means there isn't a foul. That should be communication enough. In my opinion the foul tip mechanic can potentially get you in more trouble than it will get you out of.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I was not sarcastic or ironic in any way. Bringing in yet another Rutledge red herring (not closely guarded) does not improve your case: the reason the "blocked shot" mechanic is bad does not apply to that signal either.

Maybe I missed something in school, but usually when people have discussions or debates on issues, you bring in similar or related issues to make a point. That is what is advocated in most position papers I had to write or anytime I was in speech class both in high school and college. You address the opposition point of view by using a related issue. And it was considered a bad signal until it was adopted. Now is it the fact that it is not adopted by the NF that makes it a bad signal, or something else?

Originally Posted by mbyron

Who said anything about coaches going off? It's a bad signal because it opens the door to double calls (foul/no-foul situations). I invite you either to address that point or simply to assert that you intend to use a bad mechanic as you see fit.

You obviously did not see these comments on page 2 of this page which started the signal discussion. And where my comments you eventually responded to were based on.

Originally Posted by RichMSN

On the second play, I think the official giving the gator chop is just throwing fuel on the fire. Why signal anything? The lack of a whistle tells me everything I need to know.

Let me say this, the use of the signal is not the issue, when the signal is used is the issue. If I have a blocked shot where I have a shooter falls to the floor and the ball goes out of bounds, and I give a "blocked" signal (or tip signal) and then signal out of bounds, not sure how you would likely have two opposing calls. Of course if anyone were to only use that signal and did so immediately that would be the case. But if the play is been ruled on and we are going the other way, I have no problem personally with someone signaling if they feel necessary. You do not like this, but we do not use the "not closely guarded" signal all over the court, we use it in very special situations to clarify why there is not a count. And the "blocked shot" signal should be used even less and in very specific situations if at all. I did not say you had to use it or not, but since this was talked about as to why the call was not made, I commented in a very specific context. Sorry that you seemed to miss the context.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Let me say this, the use of the signal is not the issue, when the signal is used is the issue. If I have a blocked shot where I have a shooter falls to the floor and the ball goes out of bounds, and I give a "blocked" signal (or tip signal) and then signal out of bounds, not sure how you would likely have two opposing calls. Of course if anyone were to only use that signal and did so immediately that would be the case. But if the play is been ruled on and we are going the other way, I have no problem personally with someone signaling if they feel necessary. And you do not like this, but we do not use the "not closely guarded" signal all over the court, we use it in very special situations to clarify why there is not a count. And the "blocked shot" signal should be used even less and in very specific situation. And I did not say you had to use it or not, but since this was talked about as to why the call was not made, I commented in a very specific context. Sorry that you seemed to miss the context.

Peace

I didn't miss anything. We just disagree. I don't have a problem with a supplemental signal, I just think it looks awful and oversold in this particular situation.