Blarge administration

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your example of an official indicating a 2 pointer is already wrong as there is no such mechanic or signal that is to be made on a two point bucket.

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

As an aside: Here in the Constitution State we do have our own "Connecticut Only IAABO" mechanic: Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.

Connecticut only???

Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded."

That is how/when we're supposed to signal made 2-point goals. That makes the IABBO mechanic redundant imo.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Connecticut only??? Anybody in Connecticut or IAABO ever read case book play 2.7.8? Specifically, the part that says "Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for a two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in case of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded."

2.7.8 SITUATION: During the course of the game, the officials: (a) do not signal successful two-point field goals or free throws; or (b) do signal the value of point(s) resulting from defensive goaltending or basket interference. RULING: This is proper procedure. Officials are not authorized to signal the point value for two-point goal or free throws. However, it is necessary to signal in cases of doubt or confusion and when point(s) are awarded. Officials shall also continue to signal a successful three-point goal.

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

Remember back in the twentieth century when we signaled all successful two point or successful one point trys by indicating the number of points with two fingers or one finger?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This casebook play seems to describe the signaling of a successful two point or a successful three point try. Here in Connecticut we signal a two point try attempt where the shooter has a foot on the line by pointing to the three point line.

And that's why I amended my post to say that having us signal a 2-point goal in case of doubt or confusion makes that IAABO mechanic redundant.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Disagree. If you're not signaling a three point try, then the lack of a three point try signal is the "signal" that it's a two point try.

Not quite. The lack of any official signalling a 3 is the signal it is a 2. The lack of any one official signaling a 3 is nothing....unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Unless you're saying the lead should also be signaling 3's at the top of the key.

You're right. I should have said, "from your primary coverage area".

Of course there is always that "gray area" in a two person game, the foul line extended on the lead's side.