Bump and Run

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Not in our world. We'd still bump and run this.

We would, but we shouldn't.

New trail has all throw-ins in the back court (bump and run). Otherwise, the official responsible for the line has the throw it.

FWIW, this was a clarification to the NCAAW mechanics this year (no change, but they added some examples to the CCA manual), along with a few test questionon it.

It doesn't really matter, as long as the crew looks like they know what the H they are doing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've only done two states, 50% of which are IAABO, and looking at the IAABO mechanics, Billy's got this one wrong.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"During fast break situation, ball out of bounds on Lead's sideline. Lead administers throwin as new Trail. Trail becomes new Lead."

Above: IAABO Two Person Manual Page 51

Also, check out page 22 in the NFHS Two Person Manual: 2.2.E.4.

Also: http://books.google.com/books?id=7jq...page&q&f=false: Page 68.

Snaqwells: Enough citations?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It doesn't really matter, as long as the crew looks like they know what the H they are doing.

Again, as long as you make eye contact with your partner, and make the mechanic look smooth, nobody will notice whether you do it by the book, or not. We don't want both to run down to the endline to become the new lead, with nobody to administer, and we don't want both hanging around as the new trail fighting over one basketball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"During fast break situation, ball out of bounds on Lead's sideline. Lead administers throwin as new Trail. Trail becomes new Lead."

Yep, fast break = quick transition play. It's the only exception given for the bump n run given on page 50. There's no exception noted for the location of the ball when the violation is called.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep, fast break = quick transition play. It's the only exception given for the bump n run given on page 50. There's no exception noted for the location of the ball when the violation is called.

Check this out: http://books.google.com/books?id=7jq...page&q&f=false Page 68.

[JRutledge]

In our state we bump and run on all plays in the backcourt. Meaning the New Trail takes everything in the backcourt for all violations and fouls. In the frontcourt you do not bump and run, you take it where it is. Again like said, it does not always work out that way as someone insists on moving someone when there is no need. Then again that does not mean that is the way it is or should be but it happens.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Check this out: Basketball Officiating Mechanics ... - Google Books Page 68.

And how is this google book authoritative? Is it some IAABO resource of which I'm not aware? Look, I really don't care how you do it there, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm reading my IAABO mechanics book correctly. I don't see anything that distinguishes between FC and BC for bump and run purposes.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And how is this google book authoritative?

NASO and Referee Magazine (I do realize that Referee Magazine has had problems with rules in the past).

Also, check out page 22 in the NFHS Two Person Manual: 2.2.E.4. (I can't copy and paste from this PDF file, so please don't make me type it out.)

C'mon Snaqwells. I've listed three different "national" citations. I do realize that we all have our little "Romes" out there, and I also realize that the way we really officiate a game and the way it is done "by the book" are not always the same. bob jenkins put it best, the "by the book" rule is, "New trail has all throw-ins in the back court (bump and run). Otherwise, the official responsible for the line has the throw in". In real games, as long as you make eye contact with your partner, and make the mechanic look smooth, nobody will notice whether you do it "by the book", or not, in many cases, not even colleague observers in the stands.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NASO and Referee Magazine (I do realize that Referee Magazine has had problems with rules in the past).

NASO and Referee Mag aren't authorative sources and never have been. You follow what your area directs you to follow, whether that's NFHS mechanics, IAABO mechanics, state mechanic variations, whatever. You could have 50 states doing 50 different mechanics and each state would be right....for that state.

Iow.....silly monkey argument imo.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NASO and Referee Mag aren't authoritative sources and never have been. You follow what your area directs you to follow, whether that's NFHS mechanics, IAABO mechanics, state mechanic variations, whatever. You could have 50 states doing 50 different mechanics and each state would be right, for that state.

I was responding to Snaqwells statement: "Looking at the IAABO mechanics, Billy's got this one wrong". He didn't like the IAABO citation that I gave him, so I added a few extra. IAABO, and the NFHS, have much, but not all, in common. The NASO citation was one that was mentioned earlier in the thread, which is why I decided to use it, reluctantly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was responding to Snaqwells statement: "Looking at the IAABO mechanics, Billy's got this one wrong". He didn't like the IAABO citation that I gave him, so I added a few extra. IAABO, and the NFHS, have much, but not all, in common. The NASO citation was one that was mentioned earlier in the thread, which is why I decided to use it, reluctantly.

Right, and while I still think you're reading the IAABO book wrong, it all boils down to how it's done in your part of Rome. I think I've sniped enough on this, sorry Billy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Right, and while I still think you're reading the IAABO book wrong, it all boils down to how it's done in your part of Rome. I think I've sniped enough on this, sorry Billy.

I certainly agree with the "Rome" thing. The reason why I'm so into the "book" is because I'm on my local board's mechanics training committee. We try to teach the the correct "book" mechanics. After they leave us they pick up different techniques from veteran colleagues, and clinics for young officials. These mechanics may differ from the "book" mechanics, but the "book" mechanics are always a good place to start.

The most important thing about the bump and run, or not doing the bump and run, is to do it smoothly, and then nobody, sans a veteran colleague in the stands, knows if you're doing it correctly, or not, and most veterans probably don't know, or remember, or care, about the "book" way.

I observed two junior varsity officials last season. One was an experienced veteran, but one of those "book smart" officials. The inexperienced official, as the trail, called a backcourt violation, and then decided to "run", and become the new lead. The old lead, the veteran "book smart" official, chased him all the way down to the endine, gave him the ball, and made him go back to the spot of the violation, near the division line. It looked like something from a Marx Brothers movie. I would have had no problem if they discussed this situation after the game, but to do it during the game, it just looked "bush".