What does the Instructional Chair think of these two items:
1. Reporting fouls with two hands (only reporting double # with two hands).
2. In 2-man, not switching on fouls in the backcourt.

1. This is something else that takes a back seat to improving our accuracy, communicating with coaches, etc. As an organization, there is only so much improvement we can make and we are going through a culture change. With that said, which one would you rather have, an official who uses one hand and doesn't communicate effectively or an official who uses two hands and does an excellent job communicating? I know this opinion is not only unpopular with some, but not allowed in many areas. There are some officials here who don't agree with this and other things like terminology. The response to that is no terminology exists for some things and being like-minded is a good thing when we put air in the whistle and when we talk to coaches.

2. If you are talking about long switches, we generally do not do them. It wouldn't be a big deal to me really, but I may be crazy. I'm in a 15 round middleweight fight with mother nature so my fitness isn't an issue for things like this. We have several officials that want to put their a$$ to the glass on a throw in staying in the front court. That is something I don't like at all.

Your point compares two orthogonal elements.

Communication is a skill...some are good at it, some are not.

There is no reason for people to not follow the guidelines on how to report...it doesn't take any particular skill or effort. Reporting with one or two hands is simply a choice. In an area where the standard and expectation is that reporting will be done with one hand, those that still choose to report with two are doing so to "big time" the rest. Even if they are a better communicator, I wonder what else they might try to pull if they think they are above following procedures.

Note that they might still be a very good official but if you have a choice of two good communicators, I'd probably trust the one who doesn't try to show up all the officials who follow the guidelines.

Word Of The Day ???
 

Huh? What?

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...fda52ed0e2e3d5

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...371b5b5139f2b3

Never got the whole line of thinking about feeling "big timed" if an official uses two hands to report or points on an out of bounds call versus using a full hand or not using the stop clock mechanic before signaling a violation. The only thing I care about is if my partner(s) is being accurate in his calls, and is able to communicate it to me, his/her other partner, the table, coach, and players.

And I took tomegun's point to be that we're so worried about stuff that really doesn't matter. One vs. two, stop clock vs not, point vs full hand...all that doesn't matter if you're not being accurate with your calls. Give me an official who's getting 90 percent of his calls correct and a better communicator and uses two hands, doesn't stop the clock vs. the other official who's only 85 percent and uses perfect mechanics but has more issues with communication.

Also, thank you BillyMac for posting yet some more pointless pictures instead of trying to add any substance to the thread.

I agree, but the only reason people want to do those things is that other levels do them. If those levels stopped doing them, the concern with those things would end quickly.

We have to understand the reason there is a standard is the fact that everyone does not have the capability to use those mechanics that some think should be used. Not everyone has the capability to point one direction without a stop clock because they cannot think through the play enough to do it consistently. Also with 2 handed reporting, you have to have people at the table that understand what the signal means. And considering all the mistakes that we deal with during a season when we do everything right, now we want to add something that they may or may not understand? If they changed this I probably would not care a lick. But if that is not the standard why are we so worried about it? All summer long I almost never stop the clock for out of bounds plays because I want to expand my abilities to slow down and get plays right and it helps me become more ambidextrous.

Peace

Maybe, maybe not...there are people who still bird dog yet that hasn't been done at any higher level consistently all the time. And for all we know, someone may do a mechanic a certain way because they're just more comfortable with it than the prescribed mechanic. I just don't get how people feel "big timed" in any of this. And let's say the official is trying to do something they do at the upper level...it's not always a bad thing. I don't see many officials today who go hands on the hips to call a blocking foul and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't the fists on the hips came from the high levels and has trickled down, yet basketball still continues on at the "lower" levels?

This is certainly true for some and if they're having trouble with their mechanics then they should focus on getting the pure basics down. My point is if an official effectively communicates information and is getting the plays right, then why should I as an official care what he is doing? When I work with college officials in a high school game who don't stop the clock but just point or uses two hands, I'm not thinking, "this guy just big timed me." Or if I'm watching a game where the same thing happens, my thoughts are on the call...not all the superfluous stuff.

I also understand the reasoning why people don't go to two hand reporting, but I think its a bit overstated. Most issues anyway, from a scoring perspective, comes from the scorer not paying attention...rather than not understanding what number you've put up...at least in my experience.

Third Choice ???
 

Yeah. I'll be glad to work with that official. However, there is another choice. Give me an official who's getting his calls correct, is a good communicator, and uses near perfect mechanics. We train our officials to use a particular "set" of mechanics, and then these officials, as they "move up, or "move down", will be observed, and evaluated, on that "set" of mechanics, along with the accuracy of their calls, game management, communication, appearance, etc. If you're supposed to do it a certain way in your "neck of the woods", then why not do it that way? Why deviate from the accepted norm?

It's True, You Do Learn Something New Every Day ...
 

Orthogonal: Not pertinent to the matter under consideration.

First off, this is mostly a philosophical debate...in the long run, I'll do what I have to do to move up and so will any other official.

I guess at the base of it, I don't look at these mechanics so stringently. And maybe some of the stuff that's been brought up, I feel like should be optional. My main point still stands that the first and ultimately most important thing is call accuracy. Next IMO, we want to be effective communicators...this means verbally w/partners, coaches, players, and the table, and non-verbally with our signals (which is why I might not necessarily see the use of "non-standard" mechanics as such a huge issue). Now if somehow, two officials are exactly equal in both areas is when one's mechanics (read signals) can come into play. Of course, this is all IMO.

I still birddog and every level I work has it as a mechanic. Now it is for clarification purposes and not every time, but it is still a mechanic. And the part of being big timed is that there are people that insist on doing something from another level when it is not allowed at the level they are currently working. I would never work a HS game and work college mechanic, just like I would never go to a college game and do HS mechanics or things. I know too many college officials that make it clear in multiple sports not to do things that the HS level does. Why is that hard for college or officials that work other levels to follow the standard of the level they are working? And hands on hips thing is a stylistic thing more than anything. I rarely know anyone that cares about that kind of stuff, just like I rarely find anyone that is worried if you use 4 fingers as opposed to two fingers on a directional signal. Just because the diagram shows something does not mean the people that created the picture are sticklers for everyone showing the exact picture in their mechanics. As a matter of fact there is very little commentary from the NF as to what is the reason for those pictures.

The biggest example that we see is someone that tries to wear a college jacket at the HS level. Now I do not know how many ways the CCA can say this, but those jackets were changed because people would try to wear them at HS games and they wanted the style to be totally different than what is required at the HS level in many areas. But officials seem to have to wear those. I have been working college basketball for years and would never think to wear a CCA jacket at the HS level, just like I would not wear an IHSA jacket at a college game.

Just like I feel it is a bit overstated that what is done at the other levels makes it better. I have always figured that those things are different because they levels want it to be different, not just because it is better.

Peace

Billy:

Actually, the following website gives a great explination of orthogonal elements: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie.

MTD, Sr.

Fair enough on the first point...you are right that it is optional. It's just something I almost never use.

You say you rarely find anyone that's worried bout four fingers versus two fingers, or hands versus fist on hips, but I've met plenty of people that care about inane stuff like that. We've had threads on the forums talk about hand up with five fingers, direction with four fingers, and spot of the throw-in with two. If we have threads like this, then there must be people who are making a huge deal about this. And if someone wanted to be "by the book," they'd have a case that you're wrong if you don't do the signals by the book even if you feel like it's mostly stylistic (I agree with you by the way on this point).

Let me clarify this, when I speak about mechanics, I'm mostly talking signals...rather than things like rotations/switches, PCAs, etc. On those kind of issues, you can deviate too much because this affects what your partners do. If a college guy wants to just point on an OOB call using just a finger, then IMO, that's just fine because 1.) the timer ain't looking for your stop clock signal anyway and stopped the clock on your whistle, 2.) you gave a direction that told me, the players, coaches, and fans who will be inbounding the ball. Mission accomplished.

I can see your point here...to me, this isn't an in-game issue where the points we are discussing are noticed by no one except officials. A coach or payer can tell when one official is wearing a completely different jacket or shirt, but are completely indifferent about the lack of stopping the clock signal or two handed reporting.


I wasn't trying to make the point of one being better than the other though there are times when what they do at the next level is better. First example that comes to mind is the not closely guarded signal that was being used at the college level and being used in HS games by college officials and those copying the next level before NF decided to add it later.

There are areas where certain signals are expected and even "required" by the organization. Yet there are a set of people who either work at a higher level and want to make sure that as many people know it as possible or that there are people who want people to think that they work at a higher level than they do by using the signals from those levels. There is no reason for them to do it aside form making themselves stand out.

If you're in an area where the assigning organization doesn't require the book signals, by all means, do whatever you like. But if you're in an area that says to use certain signals and you don't. What other reason could there be aside from wanting to give the impression that you're a higher level official?

I'm not talking about signals to communicate things for which there are no specified signals....but things like two-hand reporting where there is a perfectly viable alternative. There is no valid reason to go two-handed in an area that specifies one-handed.

See 99% of BM and MP posts.