Spot OOB violation mechanic

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Similar signal in the IAABO mechanics manual says "Five Seconds Closely Guarded". There is no "Five Second Violation" (like NFHS Signal 24) in the IAABO manual.

Doesn't mean you're wrong, Billy. Means some IAABO rules-making monkey is wrong, trying to improve on something that didn't need improving in the first place. The open-handed 5 finger signal has been de rigeur everywhere on a throw-in time violation as long as I've been around afaik. The purpose of any signal is tell everybody in the gym what you just called. And NFHS signal #24 does that in this case. Using signal #26 instead...like IAABO wants you too...will just confuse everbody in the gym, including your partners. Nobody will have a clue whether you called a 5-second violation or a spot violation.

Stoopid IAABO rules-making monkeys!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Using signal #26 instead, like IAABO wants you too, will just confuse everybody in the gym, including your partners. Nobody will have a clue whether you called a 5-second violation or a spot violation.

Thus the title of my post previous post: Stupid IAABO Mechanics ...

Just what was the problem with IAABO continuing to use NFHS mechanics anyway?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just what was the problem with IAABO continuing to use NFHS mechanics anyway?

That's what's confusing to me also, Billy. I thought they'd use the same signals at least. They're standard and have been around a long time.

Just for my own edification, I e-mailed a nameless IAABO board interpreter whose knowledge of the game and rules I have a very deep respect for about this. Had an initial response and just waiting for his reply to some follow-up questions. Wierd.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I just realized something. For thirty years I've been giving the wrong signal for a five second throwin violation. I've always given the five finger open hand signal, the same signal we use for a five second closely guarded violation. I've only used the signal above for designated spot, or throwin player onto the court, throwin violations. According to the IAABO manual were supposed to give the same signal, above, for all throw in violations.

Comments?

The first responses from the inquiries that I made to an esteemed IAABO rules interpreter that I know...who e-mailed some fellow esteemed IAABO rules interpreters....is that your IAABO signal #24 is labelled wrong and should be labelled the same as the NFHS signal #24...i.e. 5 second violation. They also said that they teach and use the 5 finger open-handed signal( signal #24) for all 5-second throw-in violations.

I'm awaiting further responses.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The first responses from the inquiries that I made to an esteemed IAABO rules interpreter that I know...who e-mailed some fellow esteemed IAABO rules interpreters....is that your IAABO signal #24 is labelled wrong and should be labelled the same as the NFHS signal #24...i.e. 5 second violation. They also said that they teach and use the 5 finger open-handed signal( signal #24) for all 5-second throw-in violations.

I'm awaiting further responses.

I figured this was simply an editorial mistake. I've never been corrected for using #24 for this violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I figured this was simply an editorial mistake. I've never been corrected for using #24 for this violation.

That seems to be the consensus so far from several IAABO rules interpreter I've talked to. And anything and everything that the one esteemed interpreter has ever told me I know I can take to the bank. Well almost everything. Gotta leave out beisbol.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That seems to be the consensus so far from several IAABO rules interpreter I've talked to. And anything and everything that the one esteemed interpreter has ever told me I know I can take to the bank. Well almost everything. Gotta leave out beisbol.

Everyone has their weakness. For some, it's baseball. For others, it might be acorns. For a select few, it's both.

[Jurassic Referee]

And the consensus from the IAABO interpreters...including my esteemed friend and another board interpreter who has served on the NFHS rules committee...is that it's a typo, the IAABO signal should be labelled the same as the NFHS signal and it should be used for 5 second throw-in violations, as always.

Looks like a mountain out of a molehill, Billy.

My thanks to the IAABO board interpreters who post here.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's a typo.

IAABO manuals, with this typo, went out to 200 local boards spanning 38 states and 11 foreign counties. Don't they have an editor? Didn't they ever hear about something that I learned in elementary school? It's called proofreading.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

IAABO manuals, with this typo, went out to 200 local boards spanning 38 states and 11 foreign counties. Don't they have an editor? Didn't they ever hear about something that I learned in elementary school? It's called proofreading.

Billy, do you really think more than 10 people in all those states (I'm assuming the FIBA countries got the FIBA version) noticed this before you posted it here?

And do you really think more than 1 of them actually thought to change the way he signals this violation based on that typo?

And do you really think his supervisor and rules interpreter did anything except slap him across the BillyMac and tell him to stop thinking so much?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Do you really think more than 10 people in all those states noticed this before you posted it here?

I don't care if more, or less, than ten people saw this, either before, or after, me. I have little tolerance for incompetence. And the higher that I go up the "food chain", the less I tolerate it. If I'm going to send out something to a few people, I'll give it a quick proofread. If I'm going to send something out to thousands of people, then not only will I give it a thorough proofreading, but I'll have a few others give it a thorough proofread it as well. IAABO successfully used NFHS mechanics for many, many years. The changeover to IAABO mechanics, now several years old, in my opinion, is still a mess. I still don't know why they made the change in the first place.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't care if more, or less, than ten people saw this, either before, or after, me. I hate incompetence. And the higher that I go up the "food chain", the more I hate it. If I'm going to send out something to a few people, I'll give if a quick proofread. If I'm going to send something out to thousands of people, then not only will I give it a thorough proofreading, but I'll have a few others give it a thorough proofread it as well.

If only everybody else were as thorough and detail-oriented. You're truly an exceptional person, Billy Mac. Seriously

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If only everybody else were as thorough and detail-oriented.

I'm an analytical chemist. I have to be. It puts food on my table.

I have many faults. I sometimes, no, often, screw up. But no one will ever accuse me of being lazy, or not trying my best.

The IAABO leadership has a whole year to publish one, single manual. How hard is that to successfully accomplish? What do they do when they're not attending conventions, drinking adult beverages, and playing golf?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm an analytical chemist. I have to be. It puts food on my table.

I have many faults. I sometimes, no, often, screw up. But no one will ever accuse me of being lazy, or not trying my best.

The IAABO leadership has a whole year to publish one, single manual. How hard is that to successfully accomplish? What do they do when they're not attending conventions, drinking adult beverages, and playing golf?

Putting food on their tables?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't care if more, or less, than ten people saw this, either before, or after, me. I have little tolerance for incompetence. And the higher that I go up the "food chain", the less I tolerate it. If I'm going to send out something to a few people, I'll give if a quick proofread. If I'm going to send something out to thousands of people, then not only will I give it a thorough proofreading, but I'll have a few others give it a thorough proofread it as well. IAABO successfully used NFHS mechanics for many, many years. The changeover to IAABO mechanics, now several years old, in my opinion, is still a disaster. I still don't know why they made the change in the first place.

Aren't you over-reacting just a tetch, William? A disaster? Hell, I talked to 3 or 4 IAABO board interpreters and they talked to a few others. None of 'em had ever noticed the typo and no one was teaching the use of a different signal for a 5 second throw-in violation that the one that has been universally used by everyone, IAABO and non-IAABO, for umpty ump years. Great catch by you, but.....it just ain't that big a deal. And it sureasheck wasn't a big deal to any of the esteemed IAABO board interpreters either.

Chill. Santa is coming.