NCAA - Stop clock on OOB or not?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

When an official fails to give the signal it gives the impression of being lazy.

I guess I'm lazy then.

Our local Instructional Chair kind of shrugs about this. He is more concerned with call accuracy and communication.

A shiny turd (I recently heard this myth was proven) is still a turd. A nice stopped clock signal on an inaccurately called play is still a bad call.

YMMV, but locally I...uh, I mean the Instructional Chair is concerned about getting more calls right.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I guess I'm lazy then.

Our local Instructional Chair kind of shrugs about this. He is more concerned with call accuracy and communication.

A shiny turd (I recently heard this myth was proven) is still a turd. A nice stopped clock signal on an inaccurately called play is still a bad call.

YMMV, but locally I...uh, I mean the Instructional Chair is concerned about getting more calls right.

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your point compares two orthogonal elements.

Huh? What?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Huh? What?

Billy:

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

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

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

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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?

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Lipscomb

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.

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?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

Orthogonal: Not pertinent to the matter under consideration.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Orthogonal: Not pertinent to the matter under consideration.

See 99% of BM and MP posts.