Ouch


Peace

Thanks to Uncle Sam, I have experienced high school and college basketball in Arizona, Nevada, the DC area, Mississippi and Nevada again - basically every region of the country except the midwest where I'm from. I can say for certain: a shiny turd is still a turd. I personally care a great deal about my signals - I practice in the mirror on a regular basis - but signals will not make the official better.

I wonder how many people who are strict about using one hand signals use a strong voice at the table. I wonder how many verbalize 44 as "four four". In my experience, a strong voice and verbalizing the actual number is more important than how many hands I use. The next time someone asks you how old you are or how much money you have tell them something like "I am three eight" or "I have a two zero on me" and see what kind of look you get.

I also believe in stages in an officiating career and the vast majority of the officials in our associating are at the stage where their calls are inconsistent and they have trouble with some unnatural movements we have to make (how many of us ran with a whistle in our mouths, blew it and raised our arms before officiating). Our primary goal (locally) is to put a better officiating product on the floor for the players, coaches and parents. To do that, we have to become more accurate play callers and communicate better - they don't care about reporting so in the relatively small amount of time we are allotted for training we must use it wisely.

I think there is something to gain from situations like this, minus the picture of the bird. Can someone tell me what other situation exists with multiple levels and the people at the lower levels expected to not mimic the higher level? I'm not saying one doesn't exist, just asking. Aspirations aside, I think the higher levels are often copied.

While I understand the difference, I find it odd that you would see this particular mechanic as somehow more important than using two hands to report or raising the hand to stop the clock.

Personally, I think play-calling is an underrated skill. I went to two camps last summer and the most prized feedback I got from some of the clinicians was that "you are just a good play-caller" and "you just get plays right." Too much emphasis these days, especially at the high school level is placed on having the "right look" and on other superficial things that don't really make officials better. (I'm not talking about fitness or about professional appearance. I used to be very unfit and I've taken great pains to become fit over the past few years (and this includes a year-round cardio plan and other fitness efforts) and it's made me a much better official, although it's certainly hurt the sales of ibuprofen.

But the time we spend worrying about things like raising a hand before pointing or birddogging or one-hand versus two handed reporting is just silly. I'd rather see a group of officials consistently judge advantage/disadvantage and simply get plays right. Put those officials in the best possible place to see plays and then teach them (through the use of video, coaching, and the like) to get the calls right.

One comment above that I really wanted to address. I see officials raise a hand and call out a color and not point -- if you are one of these officials, please, please figure out a way to stop doing this. Most officials that do this don't do it once a game, it's multiple times a game. Quite frankly, I think it looks awful and leaves everyone from the benches (in a loud gym) to all the spectators wondering who is getting the basketball. My personal method is to remember that we're going opposite the benches in the first half and if it takes a quick peripheral glance to the benches to remind myself of the way to point, then I grab that look and point. I can honestly say I've pointed on every OOB violation that I can remember in the last 10 years. You can too.

In Vegas we have table personnel that are part of our association. In the DC area it was anyone associated with the school and I mean kids AND their cell phones. If the number is 44 and you say "four" the kid could start writing and go back to texting. saying "forty" may hold their attention to see if it is just 40 or forty something. Plus, it just isn't natural to say "four four". Honestly, are you an official who says the actual number or someone who separates the numbers? If you are, can I borrow $100 dollars and I will pay you back "one zero zero" dollars five minutes later. That will make me a quick $99! :D

Either way has pro's and con's. I say the whole #.

Rich, I agree play calling is underrated. I also like your point on fitness. Fitness removes a mental and physical barrier to getting into position and making the right calls.

I read your post again and I just like the whole thing. Net result: better officiating.

I'm interested in the pros and cons, can you tell us what they are?

I used to, simply because it's what I was hearing around me at the lower levels. The last few years, I've changed to using the whole number. I just thought it was odd that one was a problem for you and the other isn't. I could see two-hand reporting as being just as likely to cause confusion for a less experienced crew and table.

Whole #:

Misunderstand 33 for 30 or 3
If using two hands, the table might read right to left (even though we read left to right)

Saying individual #:

Misunderstand 4-4 for #4 instead of #44
If using one hand, the table might only catch the first or last number.

It simply comes down to table personnel

Actually I don't care one way or the other concerning one hand or two hands so that really isn't a problem for me. I do think verbalizing the actual number is an issue...

...I disagree, unless the table personnel you deal with aren't human beings. People read from left to right and people communicate using whole numbers. If you present something from left to right and say the whole number I think the odds on successful communication are in your favor. Nothing is absolute, but the odds are better.

The other thing is this: just as sure as I'm breathing, there is someone reading this thread that either doesn't verbalize fouls at the table or uses a soft/low voice. Add the hands, one or two, with a strong voice and it increases the odds of successful communication. My POV is we need to get better at communicating and play calling. Locally that is the sub text to putting a better product on the floor.

Resisting Adding Turtle Image ...
 

Touché.

When I said table personnel I meant most of the trouble is regarding them. "They might read right to left, when using two hand's" or "they might think 4-4 is simply 4"..ect. Atleast that is why my association uses one hand and most vocalize each # on a foul.

When In My Little Corner Of Connecticut ...
 

Same here in my little corner of Connecticut. One hand reporting. Vocalize, "Four. Four.", for forty-four. That's the way I was taught thirty years ago, that's the way we're teaching it now, that's the way we're expected to do it, and that's the way that we're expected to evaluate young officials.

Nothing wrong with doing it any other way. When in Rome...

This is my thought: if you can get intelligent (someone has to be) people to do things that aren't part of what we do naturally - talking to someone - then that may carry over to other parts of officiating. I don't want anyone to do something that I want them to do based on my own opinion. I want them to do something that makes common sense and will help them become a better official.

Also, doing something just because it has always been done that way is something I never want to do. Where would we be if everyone thought that way?