Did anyone else see the official in the St. Josephs/Rhode Island game call, AND GIVE THE SIGNAL FOR, traveling when a player left the designated throw-in spot on the endline?
Someone call in the firing squad!
Is this what I need to call to get picked up by a D-I Men's conference? ;)

I saw that game and what sticks in my mind is the official
bending down, touching the spot for the throw-in and holding that position for 2 or 3 seconds. This
throw in actually took place in the very hectic last seconds of the game. Everyone in the gym and in TV land knew the
offense could not run the line. The official in question
deserves a gold star on his whistle for how he administered that throw-in. And all you saw was the travel signal? :(

I only saw the highlights on ESPN. The commentator said and so-and-so is called for traveling. So I immediately looked at the official and sure enough he was giving the travel signal. I was irate, since even I know that the dribbling and traveling rules do not apply during a throw-in. How this official could not know one of the Basketball Rules Fundamentals baffles me.
As for kneeling down and pointing at the spot for 2 or 3 seconds, I did see this too, but on the highlights this action was shown after the play and the call, so I thought that the official was doing this to justify the call.
If you saw the whole game, I will accept your description of the events.
You did see the travel signal, right?

This focusing on minor details such as this is what annoys me about message boards. The last time crap like this came up was when someone insisted that a coach doesn't "call" timeout, he only "requests" one. What baloney.

I don't care what signal the official gave; I care more about the game management aspects brought up in the second post.

It's a violation. The penalty for a violation is a turnover and a spot throw in. If you want to hang the guy for making an incorrect signal, go ahead -- I'd rather examine why this gentleman is regarded high enough to work D-I basketball.

I watched some officials work on Friday night. I had my first JV game in a month so I stayed and watched the boys' varsity game -- these guys work a college schedule as well. Did some college mechanics get mixed in, such as blowing the whistle before the lead put the ball in play and walking towards the table while reporting? Yes. Were they the best officials I've seen all season? Yes. Was I the ONLY person in the gym to recognize the minor mechanical differences? Yes.

Rich

Rich,
You are clearly one of those presence guys. :D But seriously, the improper signal bothers me for two reasons. First, I wonder what other minor details of the rules book this official doesn't know. You know as well as I do that the selection process for college officials is very political and often based on who you know, not what you know. I guess I am just sick of the politics.
Secondly, him being wrong on TV and the ESPN highlights that will be seen all over the country make life that much harder for the rest of us. Now we will have coaches screaming for a travel when a player jumps up and comes back down with the ball during a throw-in and they will be sure that they are correct because they saw a travel called during a throw-in on TV. Those at the top, who are very visible, must serve as educators to the general public about the game and examples for the rest of us. It is bad enough that the announcers (such as Bill Walton) don't have a clue about the rules, we don't need our fellow officials perpetuating misconceptions as well.

Rich, I take it these officials work NCAA women's ball? Because those mechanics are not used in men's games. Just checking

Chuck

I've never had a coach want traveling (complete with a pivot foot, etc.) on a throw-in. I've had them yell "traveling" when the player was precariously close to violating the three-foot provision of a spot throw in, though.

I know what they mean. Most of the time coaches are harmless, clueless, or both. I mean, I had one guy asking for traveling throughout a girls' game when the girls had their pivot foot nailed to the floor.

How about when coaches want traveling when there's a dribble? I've found that most of the time they want a PALMING violation called in that situation, but they just don't know the proper terminology.

It used to bother me, but as I get older those things bother me less. I want a partner who has presence and can work the game. Works his primary and has good off-ball coverage. I like good mechanics, but they are down the list for me.

Some of the top dogs of Men's D-I basketball have the worst mechanics I've seen. And are still outstanding officials deserving of their schedules.

Rich

I'm w/ Nevada Ref on this one. It isn't that his <i>mechanics</i> are poor, it's that he doesn't know the <i>rule.</i> He's doing D-1 college games and he thinks that it's traveling to go outside the 3-foot wide throw-in spot. Come on! What's he going to call next, an over the back or reach-in foul?

Z

I think I might know this ref - we had a "toe barely on the line" OOB call Saturday, and he knelt to point at the line. Kinda odd but kinda cool.

Also, you don't get to D-I without knowing that you can't travel during a throw-in. Are there refs who use the wrong signal? Of course (I even saw it once during the NCAA Tournament last year!), but I'd be willing to bet that 99% of those who use the signal know the correct ruling.

He bent down & pointed to the spot twice, once for each
team, in exactly the same manner. And yes, he used the
travelling signal.

That official was in a position that very, very (very) few
of us will ever be in - in front of millions of people he
had to communicate a rare and game changing call with a
limited set of signals. Everyone, including you, knows
that the travel signal is understood to signify a throw-in
violation. The way he handled the entire sequence shows
why he's working at that level. (And I think it is
laughable for anyone here to believe the official does not
know the rules.)

What do youu mean he didn't know the rule? He knew that it is a violation to pass the ball to a teammate who is OOB on a spot throw in. That is the violation he penalized. He used an incorrect mechanic--hardly a big deal in my book. I'm with Rich about the minor details and hair splitting that takes place on this board, I find it tiresome.

Being hired by a D1 conference is political to a certain extent, but if you do not have enough ability to be there, all of the politicking in the world won't keep you there. This whole incident registers in the "not a very big deal" catagory for me.

I would have to agree with Dan on this one...he had to communicate that call to both coaches and all the players, so he used a signal that would accomplish that...to say he doesn't know the rule is a pretty big step to be taking here...did his evaluator question him about the signal after the game - yeah, probably...but I bet he was also given an attaboy for getting it communicated without any fuss or coaches going nuts...

Chuck,

Yes. NCAA Women. In my opinion, the superior set of mechanics and without a doubt the superior mechanics manual.

Rich

If he just had a brain cramp and just gave the wrong signal in his excitement, no problem. If he thinks that it's traveling to move outside the 3-foot wide spot, then I would tend to think that his rule knowledge is questionable at best.

Z

Women's mechanics
 

Yes, Rich,
Both of these mechanics are clearly specified for NCAA Women.
mick

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. ;)

Sorry Cameron Rust....missed your post....Sweeping of the hand is indeed the correct signal....thanks for waking me up

Exactly.

It's signal #21 in the 2002-03 rules book (page 75). It is not in the currect officials manual. It appears it was indavertantly dropped.

To describe it...

Point to the designated spot with a single finger and sweep the hand away from the spot.

Simple and descriptive: that's the spot and the player left it.

Another poster described it as sweeping motion of the arm, along the line in question.

I can't believe the nit-picking here, though.

NCAA Division I and even NBA refs use all kinds of signals, many of them not mentioned in any mechanics book. The top level refs are there because they generally make great calls, have great game management, and experience.

I doubt VERY MUCH if anyone, including the evaluator, mentioned the "improper signal" other than in passing. I do not doubt, however, that he was complimented for making the right call under such frenetic conditions.

While the points expressed are valid to a certain degree, I think it's incredibly silly to be picking apart MINOR details of an official's work.

This board should not be used in this way.

OK, so let me make sure I understand. Once you get to D-1, we can't question anything (even if it's wrong by the book) because you've now "made it?" D-1 refs are now untouchable? So if a D-1 official calls a travel while the player has no control, that's OK because it's a D-1 game? If a D-1 official calls a travel when a player catches their own airball, that's OK and they don't have to pay Tony their $5.00? I wouldn't dream of questioning a judgement call, but in this case, it appears from the signal given that this official is demonstrating a lack of rule knowledge. When I evaluate an official for our association, I would correct a young official for this incorrect signal. Can't I expect the same from a D-1 ref?

Z

I've already explained why I think this official made the call such as he did; as well as explaining that i DO NOT APPROVE of usinf this mechanic in most all situations. Yes I would correct a younger official and expect myself to use the correct mechanic in this situation. I simply have a lot of respect for officials who have reached this level and think nitpicking a signal used to convey a very tense situation as a gross violation of officiating mechanics petty at best. To say that the offical did not know the correct signal is simply absurd. I have meat several D1 officials and their rules and mechanics knowledge is top notch. That official sold a call to millions of people. I never once said officials are untouchable at any level.
Keep in mind basketball officals do not have the luxury of football officials to turn on a mike and explain the results of the play and the reason for the penalization. They need to make a series of clear distinct signals to describe their reasoning and actions in a manner of seconds. That official did that. Praise him for making a great call in a pressure situation, not expanding a mechanic that is not 100% correct as it appears on a piece of paper. I'm sure as we all advance in our officiating careers we NEVER use an incorrect signal to convey what happened nor do we elasticize the rules to the style of play. If everything we do as officials has to be 100% as it is written in a mechanics manual I sincerely doubt we would ever make it out of middle school ball.

AMEN :D

GOTTA LOVE THE MECHANICS DEBATES
 

I love listening (reading) to the various opinions on proper mechanics vs game administration. Those stating that D1 officials should know the fundamental rules are correct. Those stating that D1 officials need to be great game managers are also correct. The point being missed by rookie and vet alike.....those at the top should be doing it the correct way so that those trying to get there follow good examples.

This same arguement can be found in the college officials who come down and work a high school game on an off night. How many times are they being watched by and up-and-coming JV official who think that the varsity refs must be doing it right because they are there......only to be told that the two college refs are using college mechanics...and not what they should be doing!

Just my 2 cents.....

I Have read most of the replies to this post and have to agree that the ref did a great job in having the strength to make the call and communicating it clearly to everyone in question. Obviously he is a good communicator and has rthe strength to make the tough call. These are 2 attributes that evaluators look for when considering officials for that high level.
I'm really curtous as to how the poster, Navedaref would have handled the same situation?????
Pistol

I had a game the other night where the offensive post player was hooking the defender as she posted up, very effectively pinning the defender in place and getting an easy post entry pass...I called the team control foul (NCAA rules) and proceeded to clear the players and report to the table...in reporting, I gave the color and number, showed the proper hold signal, AND THEN added a hooking motion with my arm...absolutely NOT the proper signal, and not found in the book, but the coach - who was at the far end and standing there with the "What'd she do?" look - turned to the post player, told her to stop hooking, and sat down...sometimes the signals we use communicate quite clearly - even though we know they aren't the "correct" signal...

:eek: I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

I like the punch and the "walk-and-talk." They also describe the times the lead should work wide and work tight to the lane extremely well. Concepts that carry-over to 2-official mechanics, I think.

I like the men's coverage areas better. I like how in the men's manual the lead has no 3-point responsibility. But the men's manual is mostly pictures, whereas the women's manual actually puts words to the mechanics and seems to be trying to teach.

One difference: The women's manual says that it is perfectly acceptable to say "on the floor." The men's manual says you should NEVER say it.

Rich

And I'm sure you had no idea of the rule since you used a "non-approved" signal :rolleyes:
The coach sure understood what you meant though. In fact he fell for it HOOK, line and sinker. :D
(sorry guys... that was bad...):eek:

I did a varsity 4A boys game with a guy who does D-1 ball about a month ago. I'm trail coming out of backcourt. Player with ball picks up dribble, loses balance a little and touches the ball to the floor without moving either foot. At halftime, this official asks me why I didn't call it a travel. I explain that it's legal. D-1 official says, "we've been calling that a travel for 15 years - it's not legal." I get out my book and prove him wrong. He apologizes and tells me that he doesn't read the rules books anymore because he pretty much has the rules memorized from all his years of experience. I no longer assume that all D-1 officials have great rule knowledge.

Z

I wholeheartedly agree with the use of extra signals in this manner to communicate specifics. I simply oppose the use of a signal that communicates the wrong thing...that it was traveling.

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