two man chop?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The same is true in 3-person.

Except that in 2-person if BOTH officials are watching the ball, there is NO ONE left to watch off ball. At least in 3-person, we still have ONE person focused completely off-ball.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the trail chopping (in either case) for sight line purposes. However, I think if NFHS wants the trail to be watching to chop, I think that the trail should have 100% of the responsibility for starting the clock. In the event that the pass is tipped by the inbound-defender, the lead could give the infamous "foul tip signal" to indicate to the trail that the clock should be started. I think this current mechanic (especially if done in 2-person) causes too many eyes to be on the ball and not enough (in the case of 2-person -- NONE) eyes off of the ball.

Just my humble opinion.....

[Rich]

I wish people would stop saying "watching the ball." I can mirror a chop WITHOUT WATCHING THE BALL. I can sense when it's touched on the court without looking in that direction at all. I don't sit and put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm the T, 3-person. Hell, I don't put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm *administering* the throw-in -- I'm actually looking for illegal activity in my entire primary area, including violations by the thrower.

If you can't watch your primary and chop at the same time (using sense and peripheral vision) don't try something advanced, like chewing gum and walking at the same time.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I wish people would stop saying "watching the ball." I can mirror a chop WITHOUT WATCHING THE BALL. I can sense when it's touched on the court without looking in that direction at all. I don't sit and put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm the T, 3-person. Hell, I don't put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm *administering* the throw-in -- I'm actually looking for illegal activity in my entire primary area, including violations by the thrower.

If you can't watch your primary and chop at the same time (using sense and peripheral vision) don't try something advanced, like chewing gum and walking at the same time.

A big +1 to my brutha up North!

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I wish people would stop saying "watching the ball." I can mirror a chop WITHOUT WATCHING THE BALL. I can sense when it's touched on the court without looking in that direction at all. I don't sit and put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm the T, 3-person. Hell, I don't put laser-like focus on the ball when I'm *administering* the throw-in -- I'm actually looking for illegal activity in my entire primary area, including violations by the thrower.

If you can't watch your primary and chop at the same time (using sense and peripheral vision) don't try something advanced, like chewing gum and walking at the same time.

As stated previously, I do it in both two and three person.

I can see the entire court, watch the action, and see the catch out of the corner of my eye if necessary. Plus, a good many times the ball is tossed deep in the frontcourt or into the backcourt where I have a better view than the L anyhow.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by grunewar

As stated previously, I do it in both two and three person.

I can see the entire court, watch the action, and see the catch out of the corner of my eye if necessary. Plus, a good many times the ball is tossed deep in the frontcourt or into the backcourt where I have a better view than the L anyhow.

It is rare that T would not see the touch in the periphery. Opposite corner down low near the arc might be the exception if there is a lot of activity in between.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

It is rare that T would not see the touch in the periphery. Opposite corner down low near the arc might be the exception if there is a lot of activity in between.

Then you simply catch and mirror the chop of the L.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Except that in 2-person if BOTH officials are watching the ball, there is NO ONE left to watch off ball. At least in 3-person, we still have ONE person focused completely off-ball.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the trail chopping (in either case) for sight line purposes. However, I think if NFHS wants the trail to be watching to chop, I think that the trail should have 100% of the responsibility for starting the clock. In the event that the pass is tipped by the inbound-defender, the lead could give the infamous "foul tip signal" to indicate to the trail that the clock should be started. I think this current mechanic (especially if done in 2-person) causes too many eyes to be on the ball and not enough (in the case of 2-person -- NONE) eyes off of the ball.

Just my humble opinion.....

Personally, I think you can (and probably do) chop without staring at the basketball.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Personally, I think you can (and probably do) chop without staring at the basketball.

It is not a matter of staring at the basketball. The point is that in a 2-person game, if BOTH officials need to watch for the same thing to happen -- peripheral vision, walking-and-chewing-gum-at-the-same time, etc. not withstanding -- I believe (and, since the NFHS did NOT put the mechanic in the 2-person mechanics, they must agree) -- is overkill and increases the risk that an official will miss something significant. I don't consider myself to be particularly dense, but I do know that any additional activity will at least occasionally cause something to be missed.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

It is not a matter of staring at the basketball. The point is that in a 2-person game, if BOTH officials need to watch for the same thing to happen -- peripheral vision, walking-and-chewing-gum-at-the-same time, etc. not withstanding -- I believe (and, since the NFHS did NOT put the mechanic in the 2-person mechanics, they must agree) -- is overkill and increases the risk that an official will miss something significant. I don't consider myself to be particularly dense, but I do know that any additional activity will at least occasionally cause something to be missed.

I don't see it as a particularly compelling argument, to be honest, but I don't see the T mirroring the chop to be particularly compelling in 3-person, either. The timer can start the clock on the touch on the floor and, in my experience, doesn't really look at the officials anyway.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The timer can start the clock on the touch on the floor and, in my experience, doesn't really look at the officials anyway.

+1 I was waiting for somebody to say that.

[26 Year Gap]

I have two girls DHs this week. 2 officials for both games each night. This assn never has 2 on the BV games. My secondary assn has 3 on ALL V games.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

+1 I was waiting for somebody to say that.

Depends on the timer.....

[ga314ref]

I lurk here quite a bit. I don't post much because the best answer has usually been given by the time I see a post, but I'll add two cents here since I don't think anyone from Georgia has added anything to this topic.

Here, varsity crews are 3-person, and most assignments are b/g doubleheaders paying $46/game. Sub-varsity is 2-person, usually b/g doubleheader, at $37/game. Some sub-varsity tournaments (very few) use 3-person ($41/gm). In our 2-person crews, T chops the clock in the frontcourt. T is also tableside on FTs.

I'm with Multi-County, and it usually takes an official 3-4 years to work up to varsity, and in that time they will have had to go to camps, and been evaluated by several of our veteran officials. While it's not verbalized, anyone with decent eyes will notice the association prefers its varsity officials to look athletic, and definitely well-groomed. Rules knowledge and a professional attitude are a must.

I've worked varsity in the past, but for personal reasons I've worked sub-varsity for the past few years.