Notice NCAA tournament blatant disregard for 6-foot closely guarded distance?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Signal #12 in the NFHS rule book.

Stoopid IAABO monkeys want to make up their own damn rules.....

Is it not optional in NFHS? If not, do you use it every time a player has the ball in the FC without a defender within 6 feet?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it not optional in NFHS? If not, do you use it every time a player has the ball in the FC without a defender within 6 feet?

That was what I was thinking. How far away is far enough to not use it? Do we stand there with our arms straight out to the side the entire time a player is not within 6'?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That was what I was thinking. How far away is far enough to not use it? Do we stand there with our arms straight out to the side the entire time a player is not within 6'?

I use it when it's obvious a player is attempting to get a count started or whenever the coach is wondering about one. Besides that, I'll use it when a player has successfully broken a count...especially late in the count.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it not optional in NFHS? If not, do you use it every time a player has the ball in the FC without a defender within 6 feet?

Gee, I don't know. What do you think think the NFHS said about it?

From the NFHS 2007-08 Rule Book when the signal was first implemented....

A new signal (spreading of the arms) was added to the signal chart to communicate that a defender is not in a closely guarded situation. The new signal clearly communicates that the official is aware that the defender is attempting to obtain a closely-guarded count, but has not met the six-foot distance requirement or that the six-foot distance necessary for continuing the count has been broken. It is intended to be used as a means of communication and does NOT need to be used in obvious situations, such as when an offensive player speeds past a defender or when there is a significant distance between the ball carrier and the defender.

It's pretty straight-forward imo. It's an informational signal that should be used when an official thinks it's needed. It's just another tool we can use if we want to. If you don't feel it should used in certain situations, then you just don't use it.

And here's one for MTD SR. right out of POE #1 in this year's rule book..."Personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules, as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS, negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game." It's kinda funny to me that the officials working a Final Four championship game find nothing wrong with using the signal when they think it's necessary, but the MTD Sr.'s of the world refuse to use it.

And btw, I might be an old dog but I keep coming here to try to avoid being labelled a stoopid old dog.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, I don't know. What do you think think the NFHS said about it?

From the NFHS 2007-08 Rule Book when the signal was first implemented....

A new signal (spreading of the arms) was added to the signal chart to communicate that a defender is not in a closely guarded situation. The new signal clearly communicates that the official is aware that the defender is attempting to obtain a closely-guarded count, but has not met the six-foot distance requirement or that the six-foot distance necessary for continuing the count has been broken. It is intended to be used as a means of communication and does NOT need to be used in obvious situations, such as when an offensive player speeds past a defender or when there is a significant distance between the ball carrier and the defender.

It's pretty straight-forward imo. It's an informational signal that should be used when an official thinks it's needed. It's just another tool we can use if we want to. If you don't feel it should used in certain situations, then you just don't use it.

And here's one for MTD SR. right out of POE #1 in this year's rule book..."Personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules, as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS, negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game." It's kinda funny to me that the officials working a Final Four championship game find nothing wrong with using the signal when they think it's necessary, but the MTD Sr.'s of the world refuse to use it.

And btw, I might be an old dog but I keep coming here to try to avoid being labelled a stoopid old dog.

So you are saying it IS optional?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Gee, I don't know. What do you think think the NFHS said about it?

From the NFHS 2007-08 Rule Book when the signal was first implemented....

A new signal (spreading of the arms) was added to the signal chart to communicate that a defender is not in a closely guarded situation. The new signal clearly communicates that the official is aware that the defender is attempting to obtain a closely-guarded count, but has not met the six-foot distance requirement or that the six-foot distance necessary for continuing the count has been broken. It is intended to be used as a means of communication and does NOT need to be used in obvious situations, such as when an offensive player speeds past a defender or when there is a significant distance between the ball carrier and the defender.

It's pretty straight-forward imo. It's an informational signal that should be used when an official thinks it's needed. It's just another tool we can use if we want to. If you don't feel it should used in certain situations, then you just don't use it.

And here's one for MTD SR. right out of POE #1 in this year's rule book..."Personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules, as they are written and interpreted by the NFHS, negatively impact the basic tenets and fundamentals of the game." It's kinda funny to me that the officials working a Final Four championship game find nothing wrong with using the signal when they think it's necessary, but the MTD Sr.'s of the world refuse to use it.

And btw, I might be an old dog but I keep coming here to try to avoid being labelled a stoopid old dog.

That seems like a lot of words to replace "optional."

Now, MTD's refusal to acknowledge it is a different story, but it really has nothing to do with IAABO. Or were you just being snarky on that one? I have a hard time recognizing old-dog humor sometimes with the iPod in my ears.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have a hard time recognizing old-dog humor sometimes with the Sony Walkman playing Bon Jovi in my ears.

All nice and shiny...

Anyways, I like the mechanic. I've put it to good use and have heard more than a couple of times from a coach "See, I told you that you're too far back. Guard him!"

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That seems like a lot of words to replace "optional."

To say that a mechanic is optional is ambiguous between:
a) an official opting never to use the mechanic, and
b) an official opting to use it only occasionally when needed to communicate

I think you're using it in sense (b) and JR is rejecting sense (a). You're in violent agreement.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

To say that a mechanic is optional is ambiguous between:
a) an official opting never to use the mechanic, and
b) an official opting to use it only occasionally when needed to communicate

I think you're using it in sense (b) and JR is rejecting sense (a). You're in violent agreement.

Perhaps, but I was responding to this exchange in particular.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Optional signal in the IAABO Manual. Mandatory here in the Constitution State.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Signal #12 in the NFHS rule book.

Stoopid IAABO monkeys want to make up their own damn rules.....

[Jurassic Referee]

The NFHS is clear in how they want the signal used. I already gave their issued reference for that. I have no idea whatinhell IAABO regards as being optional or mandatory, nor do I really care. If IAABO wants to issue their own exam, mechanics and rules interpretations, they're free to do so. It doesn't help non-IAABO officials though when they issue something that is completely contrary to what the NFHS has issued and goes against FED rules or doctrine.

Also as a general observation, I do think that sometimes you just have to referee the game and quit trying to micro-analyze every single facet of it. The usage of this particular signal is a prime example of that imo. It's no more or no less than exactly how the FED told us to use it when they initiated it.

JMO

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

b) an official opting to use it only occasionally when needed to communicate

I think that's how the NFHS directed all of us to use it when they initiated the signal. And I think I cited their words to that effect above.