Cameron: Totally agree w/ the use of the "hook" signal in this sitch. I have used it as well in games to convey something similar. I have also opened my hip and lifted off the floor to convey the nature of a blocking foul. However let me play the devils advocate for a minute. We are now adding a signal that is clearly not in the mechanics manual. So if it is Ok to do this, then we are opening the door for a signal to describe the action that caused every foul we call. Besides the fact that reporting a foul would start to look like a mime scene, the fact of the matter is that the "hook" signal was used to convey the action that caused the foul. Is this not like using the traveling signal to convey the action of the violation that we are talking about in this thread. I'm not trying to rile you up, just trying to provide all aspects of thought in this discussion.

Not to be picky, but the only signal that is supposed to be given to the table on a team control foul is the team control signal (as per the CCA Women's Manual).

:)

Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 22nd, 2003 at 11:23 AM]

I am a big fan of communication, both verbal and non-verbal. If you can show me from 40 feet away in a loud gym rather than trying to yell it to me, I like it. Signal what you are required to signal and add what you need to in order to clarify your message.

My book is different than your book.
 

13.B.4. <u>Personal fouls, Calling Official</u> - Inform scorer by: b. Slowly stating the color of the jersey and the player's number who fouled. Also with a one hand signal, indicate the number of the player who fouled and the nature of the foul.

What does your book say?

I beg to differ. When I add some extra signals for communication, it only follows the prescribed signal and only in infrequent cases where I feel some extra information may defuse a potential situation. If it crept into every signal and replace the prescribed signals then it would be a big problem and would lose it's effectiveness.

In these cases, the infraction is still a foul and the foul is still a block/hold/push/etc. and should be indicated as such. Only then should the extra be added...not in place of the defined signals.

Quote:

Is this not like using the traveling signal to convey the action of the violation that we are talking about in this thread.

I don't think so. One is essentially adding to the description of the infraction for increased understanding. The other is indicating an entirely different infraction...a sure recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. That is what we have today.

I would suggest that calling this traveling is no better then stating/signaling a foul as "a reach" or "over-the-back". Just as there are no such infractions, there is no travelling on a throwin.

Quote:

I'm not trying to rile you up, just trying to provide all aspects of thought in this discussion.

No problem. I certainly enjoy a good debate that sticks to the topic rather than targeting the participants as often is the case here.

D@mn! Four pages of posts in 12 hours. We guys sure have been busy today.

I was tired after reading just the first page! :D

Since you asked, I would have called a violation for a teammate of the thrower being OOB during a designated-spot throw-in. I would have pointed at that teammate and then given a direction signal the opposite way. If I remember correctly that teammate was almost under the basket OOB, so I would probably have given the throw-in on the same side as the original. However, if the teammate were OOB on the other side of the basket, then I would have administered the throw-in over on that side.
Now I also don't think that this was a tough call, it was an obvious violation. Was it an intense situation? Yes. But I don't believe that it took any great intestinal fortitude to make this call. Just blow the little whistle. This official did that. That's great, but isn't that what he gets $500 to do? Even if he did know the rule, I have a problem with him not setting a good example for other officials, and for furthering confusion such as this: http://www.officialforum.com/thread/7090
Lastly, a big thanks to Camron, who has wonderfully captured my original purpose for this post in his points throughout this thread.

hmmm...I gotta believe either

a) you have sh1t D1 referees in your area
b) he was pulling your leg
c) he doesn't really do D1 (or D2, or D3).

IMO.

Re: My book is different than your book.
 

Page 61, 2002-03 CCA Women's Manual.

D. Team Control Foul Signal

1. Blow the whistle and raise fist in the air to stop the clock.
2. Follow with punch signal at the spot of the foul.
3. Punch signal should be in the direction the ball will be awarded (signal #21).
4. When reporting, give punch at table.

13.B is different than you say, too. Says nothing about a preliminary signal, unless the foul is a team control, intentional, or double foul. You have the 2002-03 manual? We are talking CCA women's, right?

Rich

Same book
 

Rich,
13.B.4(b) is on page 35.
mick

I'll look there when I get home.

I think that by adding the new signal this season they may have introduced an inconsistency in the manual. I do know the D-I women's games I worked I've only seen that signal on all team control fouls.

I like the signal, but don't think it really conveys any information other than "we're going the other way and not shooting free throws."

Rich

<i>"...the only signal that is supposed to be given to the table."</i>

Rich, I am beginning to understand your above statement.
And, yes, I agree that is the only signal to give when only a Team Control foul is reported.
I did not understand that you were writing to the specifica case of "Team Control".
mick

Corrected my original post to make it clearer.

Thanks.

Rich