Team Control Mechanic Not Authorized in Ohio
 

This is from the Ohio High School Official Association. They do not allow their officials to use the punch for a team control foul and require officials to go against the NFHS mechanics manual and go behind the head when calling an illegal screen.

"Several questions have been raised concerning the proper signal for a “team control” foul. There has been no change from the previous years. In Ohio, we will continue to use signal #34 for both TEAM and PLAYER control fouls. We will NOT use signal #35 for TEAM control fouls. Again, there is no change from past years."

http://www.ohsaa.org/officials/Offic...TER%202011.pdf

They go on to say later in the Winter Bulletin they issued today:
"Please adhere to the mechanics as outlined in the NF Officials Manual. One of our major goals for the officiating program is consistency in mechanics throughout the state. There is no place for individual preferences and modifications of the mechanics either by association or conference.

What's up with this?

Sounds like somebody is exercising their individual preferences and modifications of the mechanics. :)

As a new-to-Ohio referee, it caught me by surprise. I don't remember it being covered by the online rules meeting I took and I've been using the team control signal all year.

It's strange to me also because in the soccer rules meeting they made a big deal about how OHSAA would be kicked out of the NFHS if they deviated at all from the Fed book but apparently it's important enough to risk for basketball.

Personally, I'd be OK with using the player control signal for a TC foul. The punch looks a lot like a point in the other direction, IMO. I use the proper signal but could make that switch quickly.

Either that or practicing to be IAABO members when they grow up.....:p

Bad Woddy! Bad, bad Woddy!

Ironically, I'd rather do away with the PC signal and just use the TC signal for both. The PC signal just feels really awkward.

Agreed. I use the TC signal when giving my prelim for PC fouls. At the table, I use the PC signal but I was trained by a former CBA ref who always told us to "punch it" on PC fouls.

I know some people don't like that but the PC signal feels and looks really awkward, especially on a prelim. Nobody has said anything to me about using the mechanics I do on the prelim.

Well, in retrospect, I agree. I always punch it at the spot and give the PC signal at the table. And that's what I'm really advocating for both TC and PC fouls. At the table, the punch seems awkward to me -- at the spot the punch the other way is just perfect.

I agree..especially on bang bang calls. A team control signal looks a lot stronger and sells a call a lot more, IMO than putting a hand behind the head. Plus it just looks silly. I'll still report it that way at the table though.

Gotcha.

To be honest, I have not really been using the punch mechanic at the table either. Instead I've been going with the block mechanic for illegal screens, which I should probably stop doing.

I agree the punch can seem a little awkward at the table. But I guess I should start practicing that too.

I've been doing the same. TC or PC signal as appropriate for pre-lim and then the actual foul signal (block, charge, etc) when reporting.

APG, the PC on a banger block/charge is what really seems to tie me. It seems a lot more natural to just go with the TC.

Aaaannnnd that is their right to do so. :)

Peace

On my bang-bang PC fouls, my prelim on the spot is to point the other direction (index finger). At the table I go with the PC mechanic.

On team control fouls I sometimes punch, sometimes point, on the spot. To the table I give either a punch or block mechanic. Just whatever feels natural at that moment.

Exactly. To me, it's more natural and just a stronger signal. I kind of wish they'd just do away with the player control signal

Additionally, a PC foul is essentially just a special version of at TC foul. If you apply the same extension for an airborne shooter to the TC foul, every PC foul would also be a TC foul. Just get rid of the PC foul since the only real difference is that it is specifically on the player with the ball but it has no additional consequence.

No idea...and evidently, no one else here does either. :)

"Hang On Sloopy" ...
 

"I have already received a report regarding an official, who, while on the court and supposedly officiating a scrimmage, was also texting! This is totally unacceptable behavior."

I thought Mark Padgett lived in Oregon, not Ohio.

In my defense, I was posting the play to this forum so I wouldn't forget it. :D

I'm surprised Lord Byon has not chimed in yet.

I Hope That Befriend Isn't A Euphemism ???
 

"Finally, extra caution should be taken when getting involved with Facebook or other internet social media. Officials should never be making attempts to befriend players, in particular, of the opposite gender."

Ohio officials have to be told this ????

By The Light, Of The Silvery Moon ...
 

"A has the ball out of bounds for a throw in. Four team A players line up along the free throw lane in a very close line. (they are spooning) B1 forces his way between two of the team A players."

Can't wait for Mark Padgett to get his hands on this one.

Throw Out the Baby With The Bathwater ...
 

We don't modify mechanics. We have our own stoopid IAABO mechanics.

And suddenly I have this image of BillyMac in a bathrobe with a half consumed bottle of wine on his desk giggling at his computer monitor.

:D

Whatever Happened To The Macarena ???
 

My Bad, I'll Turn It Off ...
 

Sorry. I didn't realize my webcam was on.

That was point, William. Ohio and IAABO both feel free to make up their very own mechanics.

Now ask me if I care. :D

This has been the mechanic since the Team Control foul was created several years ago. The main reason for the mechanic was that scorers AND OFFICIALS know that no free throws are taken when the player control signal is given. To serve as a reminder to the officials that Team Control fouls are non-free throw shooting situations, they elected to go with this mechanic. Ironically, I have frequently seen officials use a combination of signals #34 and #35 when reporting both player control fouls and team control fouls.

Interestingly, I observed a boys varsity game in the premier conference in Central Ohio earlier in the year. The officials did NOT use the OHSAA mechanic OR the NFHS mechanic when calling a team control foul.....and, ended up shooting free throws....doh!!!!!!!!!!

International ...
 

Hey. It's a free country.

Well, at least most of the countries served by IAABO are free.

I think?

Bermuda? Japan? Philippines? Korea?

Do we have IAABO boards in North Korea?

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...0484&index=ch1

It might be part of the "Don't talk to the media" and maintain neutrality mantra and got misworded or we got some people trying get a bit too friendly.

We got an email this week from our association secretary to have clothes on when working with female officials, AD's, and team personal, not quite sure who around here is doing this but it makes you wonder...


The JV thing is nice but doesnt quite address the question our association sent them. Which is how does this count for player's quarter limit and if "overtime" in this case is counted as an extension of the last quarter or counts as another quarter against the player's limit.

What th' ???
 

Trying to find which illustration in the back of the book legitimizes an index finger point. Am I missing something here? :confused:

Oh, that clarifies it. :eek:

The Facebook thing is just common sense. If you are officiating high school basketball/soccer/volleyball, it does not look good when your list of facebook friends includes the good looking point guard (or ugly point guard for that matter) for one of the two teams you are officiating next week. Don't think for a minute that someone for the OTHER TEAM won't discover that little fun fact some how. Never mind the "problems" created by interacting with a minor online. They are just reminding us to be careful.

While we do not typically have the JV problem listed, overtime is always considered to be an extension of the final quarter -- the overtime will only be three minutes in length. Therefore, it is not an official quarter contributing to the 5-quarter per day maximum permitted by the OHSAA.

Never said it was in the back of the book. Never had a supervisor or observer tell me to stop either. :D

Agreed on the facebook; but it's apparent that common sense doesn't always prevail. I can't imagine any reason to send a friend request to any local player, "particularly of the opposite gender." The last thing I need is more teenagers clogging my FB feed.

You play 6 minute quarters in JV?

Girls usually play 6 minutes and boys play 7 in this area for JV.

We also do a weird 6 minute 1st and 3rd and 7 minute 2nd and 4th combo in NW Ohio for sub-varsity.

Log off from chatroulette!

So OTs are, what, 3:15?

I used 3:00 for the one OT I've had so far.

Not sure whether you were referring to me, but I do seem to recollect that the state's rationale for using the PC signal for both PC and TC fouls is that it helps everyone understand that we won't be shooting free throws.

Hey, don't roll your eyes at me, buster, it's not my rationale.

It is not the officials who send the initial invite, it is frequently players. I have two high school-aged sons and have coached many of their friends in basketball, soccer, baseball or volleyball over the years. Since I still play soccer and a little basketball, the players can relate to me better than many of the other parents. Hence, I will get the occasional friend request FROM a player (always been a friend of one of my sons). We just have to be VERY careful in this area.

The Catholic League and some others play 6-minute quarters FR and JV while many other leagues play 7-minute quarters.

:d

3 minutes for the 1st OT. 3:30 for the 2nd. 3 minutes for the 3rd. etc.

Based on the directive quoted, the problem is officials making the invites. At least that's how I read it. Your situation is different; my kids are younger (oldest is still in elementary) so I don't have this issue. I'm leary enough about being friends with the young adults who were kids when we moved away from our church 5 years ago.

But I can understand if my kids' friends send requests in a few years.

OTOH, I've already experienced some issues with younger airmen in my unit. There are just some things an NCO doesn't need to know.

You'd think there would be things an airman wouldn't want his NCO to know.

Billy:

I am not a friend on my better half's Facebook Page nor am I a friend on our sons' Facebook Pages. Why? I do not have a Facebook Page. LOL

MTD, Sr.

You'd think so. I can confirm this is so. I was "unfriended" shortly after. :D

+1

Comments from a forty (40) year OhioHSAA basketball official.
 

1) Camron, I agree with you it would be a logical and rational thing to do.

2) I am getting old and forgetful so I do not remember if the NCAA adopted the definition for Team Control Foul (TCF) and changing the penalty from awarding a throw-in to the foulee's team if the foulee's team is not in the bonus and awarding free throws to the foulee if the foulee's team is in the bonus to awarding a throw-in to the foulee's team one year before the NFHS did or if both Rules Committees adopted the definition and penalty in the same year.

That said, when the NFHS adopted the TCF definition the OhioHSAA decided that it would not use the NFHS's the TCF foul signal because it did not want to confuse (:rolleyes:) the players, coaches (:eek:), scorers (:eek:) and fans (ROFLMAO).

That said (again), I use the TCF signal because I am a curmudgeonly old geezer (just ask my better half and our two sons and my sons will tell you that I am a bald old geezer, :D) who agrees with Camron.

3) As I was writing this post I had a third point that I wanted to make but once again, because I am getting old and forgetful I cannot remember what my third point was going to be.

MTD, Sr.

Maybe 'leery', unless you're this guy:

http://www.erowid.org/culture/charac...mothy4_med.jpg

I'll have some of what he is having, ;).

MTD, Sr.

Is that like being 'ignored' on here? Unless Tony quotes the guy, that is.

Hmmm. Probably the same thing, actually.

Any guesses as to the rationale behind this decision?

Sometimes NFHS makes boneheaded decisions regarding mechanics- i.e. trail going table side on FT attempts and I can see an organization wanting to do what is best for the game and their members but this one has me guessing.

Myself, as much as I like the punch for TC fouls, I think it is important to differentiate between a PC and TC foul.

Luckily we are getting into FIBA time now in my area so I get to use their signals for charging fouls by an player with the ball.

Constable, why do you think it is important to differentiate between the two? Just curious.

Why is it boneheaded for the trail to go table side on FT attempts? I think it's an excellent mechanic. If a coach has a problem with a call I made, I can deal with it right there and then rather than have my partner deal with that.

Also why do we need to differentiate between player and team control fouls?

It is not boneheaded at the NCAA and NBA/WNBA level, BUT not at the NFHS level. Why? Coaches at the H.S. level tend to be (Hank Nichols was once asked does a coach have to do to get a TF from him and he responded "when he acts like a jerk.") jerks, and if the T is the one that called the foul that is drawing the ire of the coach directly behind him, there is a very good chance that a TF could follow.

Why, did the NFHS adopt this stupid (yes, I said stupid) mechanic for H.S. games? Mary Struckhoff is an NCAA Div. I Women's and WNBA official. You do the math. I have officiated college basketball for far too many years than I care to remember and I do not have a problem with being in front of the bench, but it is just a stupid idea for the H.S. game.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Regarding my second post (Go to Page 4, 3rd post down; it is a good read.) in this thread, I remember now remember what my third point was. If one peruses the first couple of pages of the NFHS Basketball Rules Book, one will find the page with the names and pictures of the members of the Rules Committee. Check out who the Chairman of the Rules Committee and for which StateHSAA he is an Assistant Commissioner.

Why? Is it really that hard to know and use 2 signals for 2 different fouls? I don't understand the mindset that because they added the TC foul signal, that means we need to look at see if the PC foul signal is necessary.

Why is it needed? When it comes down to it, a PC foul is also a TC foul.

It's like the NFHS football rule on blocking below the waist. What's the point in having clipping, since clipping is blocking below the waist?

Well, what's the point of having "palming," it's just an illegal dribble (or travel).

Because a PC foul can occur when there is no TC

Fine with me. Create a signal to cover all illegal dribbles.

A PC foul can also occur when there's no PC, yet we still call it a PC foul.

Just apply the airborne shooter principle and call it a TC foul instead of a PC foul. There's no need for two separate distinctions.

We have one; it was in place before they added the palming signal.

Not sure what you are talking about in the bold.

If the airborne shooter releases the ball for a try then there is no TC, a crash after the release and before the shooter returns to the ground is a PC foul but TC has ended.

When you quote someone, it's all in italics. Better off using bold or coloring instead to isolate a portion.

His point is that PC has ended, too, yet it's considered a PC foul. The same extension could easily apply and call it a TC foul; it's just semantics.

4.12.1 Sit A says that the PC provisions continue with an ABS until they touch the floor. TC does not.

There is also no PC, even though the foul is considered a PC foul. No idea why that's difficult to understand.

Eliminate the PC foul, and re-word team control to include the airborne shooter rule, just the player control rule was written to include the airborne shooter.

A blocking foul is also a foul. Does that mean we don't need the blocking signal? Same (il)logic.

A PC foul is specifically defined in the rules and has been for a while. There is really only one type of player control foul -- the player with control of the ball commits the foul. There are several types of team control fouls -- illegal screen, pass and crash, clear or box out fouls (before the shot), etc.

I just don't understand why its a problem to signal a PC foul when there is a PC foul. Signal a TC foul when its a team control foul other than a PC foul. Just like we signal a block and sometimes a push after we signal a foul. Easy.

PC does not continue, only the provision for a PC foul. This is just semantics and could easily apply to TC for this situation. "A foul by an airborne shooter is considered a TC foul."

But why? The burden is on you to explain the purpose for doing this. Just saying we have 2 signals isn't sufficient. If we never had a PC signal and the suggestion was to add one, then maybe you'd have a point, but we've had the PC signal for as long as I can remember and there is no reason to get rid of it. Let's focus on rule changes that are actually needed and make sense rather than changing signals, which forces a rule rewrite that is totally unnecessary and could possibly lead to some confusion.

I promise: your career will not be cut short of games or even minutes because you used the PC signal instead of the TC signal.

IF there is any signal to be added, it should be for something like when a player steps out of bounds and we signal a violation and point in the new direction. Without using a mechanic that isn't necessarily part of our standard mechanics, some people won't know what the call was. I'm not saying this is a must-do, but if we're going to change something, let's start with something that's actually NEEDED!

Only through and exception that could just as easily be applied to the team control foul rule.

It is not a problem, it is just completely unnecessary. If you call a team control foul and report the number of the player had the ball, what additional value or information is imparted by calling it a PC foul instead of a TC foul. Neither actually communicates what the player actual did (block, hold, etc.) as is the case with other types of fouls.

As for the palming vs. illegal dribble. It it actually communicates what occurred. If you call traveling while the player is dribbling, be prepared for confusion at best. It was that way for a while and it only led to the need for an explanation on what was actually called.

There ya go...just fixed it for ya! :D

Because not every PC foul is a TC foul.

I don't see the advantage of moving yourself closer to a coach. If he has a question, he can ask it and I will address it when time permits.

True, but exactly what do you different after you call a TC foul and you do when you call a PC foul? Why the need for two fouls that identify the same action but one tells the offender has the ball or is a shooter (both things everyone can see for themselves).