I've not seen the manual, so I can't comment on it. But there are a few things about the mechanics themselves that I don't really like. I don't like the Lead's coverage area. I think the men's coverage for the Lead is better, although it may a little confusing at first. I don't particularly like the mechanic of going table-side after calling a foul. It's not the worst thing in the world, but I think overall, it's better to stay away from a possibly irate coach. I think that the women "lock down" (no rotating) in the last shot clock cycle of the half. I don't like that. If the L needs to be on the opposite block to call the play, that's where he should be.

On the other hand, I like the "walk and talk" reporting that the pro's use. I think it looks more relaxed, smoother. I like the "punch" for the team control foul, too. But that's about it.

My feeling is that the women's side wants to look like the NBA. I guess there's nothing wrong with that; but NCAA is not NBA. What do you like so much better about the women's mechanics?

Chuck

I know...
 

...because I just picked up the women's manual since I plan on attending a women's 3-man/person/whistle camp this summer.

It was an excellent read -- I learned a few things that work even in 2-man: working wide, closing down. I started thinking that perhaps I close down too much and lose angles on strongside rebounding.

Mostly, I just enjoy reading this stuff because it improves my outlook on the game -- when I officiate or when I watch other officials work.

Rich

Chuck,

Here is the third kiss of death I have given you in the last couple of days. I think that you make some very excellent points.

MTD, Sr.

The L can still go to the other side of the paint if the action makes it necessary to do so. However, the T and C do not rotate. When (if) there is a subsequent transistion before the next whistle, the old L must remember that he is to return to the side of the floor where he came from and will be the T on that side of the floor. The purpose of the "no-rotation" is to make sure that all officials know who the C is, since end of period responsibilities lie with this official.

My two Cents:

A. Saw the game and the offical had to comunicate a very complicated (from a fans perspective) to a full house and millions on TV and a couple of rule incompetant announcers. Did he know this was not the correct signal to give technically I would be willing to bet a couple of game fees on it. Did he get his point across clearly absolutely!!.

B. I appreciate the fact that we recognize that this is not the correct signal to give (technically) in that situation, but to critisize this guy as a poor official, come on here. One does not get to the D1 level without having superior knowledge of rules and mechanics. More over one does not get to that level w/out being able to communicate a sitch such as this the many people who are not rules experts. I think some of us are just jealous of officials working at that level and use that to tear someone apart. I would be willing to guess that official got a congrats from the conference assignor for making and COMMUNICATING a very difficult call in a pressure situation to millions of people.

C. In summary while this is not the correct mechanic to use in FED ball or even many college sitch's. I think in this case it was 100% justified. Ithink one word used quite a lot on this board signifies what that official did in that sitch. PRESENCE

Bigwhistle beat me to the part about L moving across if needed during "lockdown"...but I can answer this part (I hope)...I think the powers that be have seen some things in the NBA/WNBA that they liked as far as mechanics, and realized they would make the game smoother if incorporated into the NCAA game...please notice that the games are not called similiar to the NBA games, just some mechanics that have been borrowed...there are still some differences between Women's NCAA and NBA (thank God)...not sure I can really say that I like Men's or Women's better - they both have their pluses and minuses - they are just different because the games are different...

Well said.

The problem with (A) * (B) is that there is a signal defined for this violation. It's pointing to the designated spot and sweeping the hand away from the spot.

The sad fact is that many officials really do think that it is "travelling". Whether they call it correctly (with a 3 foot box) or not, it still communicates the wrong information. Now a lot of people that saw the call will think that the thrower can't move the feet becuase that is was traveling implies. I've had coaches, players and fans repeatedly make statements to that effect. The myth will never disappear as long as officials use the wrong signal. It only gets reenforced.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jan 21st, 2003 at 12:28 PM]

That is exactly what I said in point C. However in this situation I believe this was the best way to sell a call to millions of people. Do you honestly think this official did not know the correct signal??? Give me a break. You are right that many people do erroneously think this is traveling when it is not. However what if FED put a new mechanic in their book to use this signal for such a violation, would it be correct then??? IMO the traveling signal does seem to communicate very clearly that a thrower moved outside the designated spot. However since it is not an accepted mechanic we frown its use.

While I think that's true in MOST cases, there are some cases where that just isn't the case. Sometimes availability of time (willing to travel all over to officiate), attending assignor camps, and having good connections is just as important. I'm not saying this official is poor... but we have had discussions on this board before where we have crucified a young official because they gave the traveling signal for an inbounds violation. Just because this official was doing a D-1 game, we don't hold this official to the same standard?

Z

Well, the problem with this thinking is that the violation
was not caused by the player moving off the box. He turned
to his right & passed the ball to a team mate who jumped OOB
on the other side of the basket. Nit? Maybe, but its hard
to say that using the travel signal in this case will cause
even more rec-league-dad-coaches to think it's a travel to
move the feet on a throw-in. And if it does, well then so
what? As I've already said the entire sequence was handled
in an exceptional manner during a critical point in the
game. BTW, it's not an approved mechanic to bend down &
touch the floor to signify where the spot is on a throw in.
I don't hear anyone complaining about that. To claim the
official is somehow deficient because of the way he chose
to communicate is laughable.

I actually do think that this official and MANY other do not know the correct signal.

On this topic and other not so common situations, there are many accomplished officials that simply don't know the rules or signals.

IMO NO because until anyone of us gets there and has to sell a call such of this in front of a national TV audience we have no place questioning the use of this call in this sitch. I have already stated for previously stated reasons that this signal is not acceptable in lower level situations.

I think I have read this whole thread and I must admit I am having a brain cramp........WHAT IS THE PROPER SIGNAL FOR THIS VIOLATION......

Just hoping to get something constructive from this thread.....

I think that the next time I have a 3 seconds I'll use the travel signal. Sure, it's not the correct signal but it's still a violation. Should be close enough according to some opinions here. ;)