NCAA - Stop clock on OOB or not?
 

What is everyone's opinion on raising an arm to stop the clock on an OOB situation under NCAA regulations?

I prefer to just point at all levels of play, but my opinion doesnt matter.
As far as the proper mechanics/approved signals go NCAA-W are the only ones that dont have a stop clock on OOB.

Depends on the type of OOB play.

Bang-bang plays get whistle and point.

Player steps on the line I whistle, point to the spot of the violation, then point the direction.

Run of the mill OOB plays I give the raised opened hand with the whistle followed by the direction.

I forget which way the teams are going I go with whistle, opened hand, and just the color with no point. :D

This one marks you as an experienced official: knowing when to work an advanced mechanic outside the book. :D

Do you ever point? :eek:

I am a bald old geezer who has been officiating (both high school and college) longer than a significant percentage of posters on this Board and I have always (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirely) given the stop clock signal each and everytime when it is appropriate: foul, timeout, and violation. When an official fails to give the signal it gives the impression of being lazy. I remember hearing Edgar Cartotto many many times saying that his officials (when he was the Supervisor of Men's and Women's Officials for the NCAA Div. I Northeast Conf.) had better giving the stopped clock signal. The signal tells everybody involved that the clock must be stopped if running.

MTD, Sr.

Let's be honest though. I'm betting the overwhelming majority of timers aren't going off signal but rather hearing the whistle. And even know, at the high levels of college ball and at the pro level, they're using PTS so the clock is going to be stopping automatically 95 percent of the time.

I guess I'm lazy then. :D

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.

Only if there is still confusion after my loud yelling of the color, but there never is.

I forgot one other scenario which I do feel I need to work on always providing an open hand, and that's plays where I ask for help. I seem to only do it 50% of the time. I need that to be 100%.

BNR, you know me - I'm not really into details ;) - but do you literally have an open hand with open fingers or a hand similar to a salute with the thumb tucked? Just curios...and bored.

Actually my 4 fingers are together and my opposable digit is separate at about a 60 degree angle.

Don't ask why, it just what my hands naturally do. :D

Off-topic, but I hate it when officials have there hand up for subs or other delay but don't have their palm facing the official with whom they should be communicating. Especially when their entire body and open hand are facing the table.

I always put my hand up and forward of my body in the direction of the official who will be administrating the ball. If I have to talk to a coach or table personnel I turn my body or head but I keep my palm facing my partner.

Just my particular quirk/pet peeve.

Funny, if we had a nickel for every time I have told someone about this exact same thing we could go out for several drinks. The situation you described is one time I would have my fingers spread wide and, like you, forward of my body facing my partner. After all, he/she is the one I want to keep from putting the ball in play.

I also hate it when an official holds their hand up, before handing/bouncing the ball to a player. Something about it just doesn't look right to me and it seems like there are often delays which means that official is just standing there for an extended time with their hand up. bounce/hand the ball to the player, hand up, count in that order every time.

I think younger and inexperienced officials need to "stop the clock" and veterans do not need to use it as much. That being said I am kind of indifferent about either way. I see the benefit for the stop clock, but I am OK if we never have to use it.

Peace

Dallas Shirley
 

MTD -

A Dallas Shirley reference !!!!! You have just moves to the top of my list

in the respect department. Dallas is one of the few officials in the the Hall of

Fame. I remember him at a George Tolliver camp back in 89 or 90. What

a great person.


As far as stopping the clock...... north of the Mason Dixon line it is pretty

much standard. Down in Dixie, all of the NBA wannabees will just point !!!!!

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.

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?

It's About Time ...
 

We've never had any problems with one hand, vocalize each digit, signals here in our little corner of Connecticut. It's taught that way because it works for us. If it wasn't working, if someone were to suggest a better way, our training committee would take a look at it, and decide to change, or not to change.

We have made lots of mechanics changes over the past thirty years. Some have worked, other haven't. A few years ago we experimented with no long switches on fouls in the backcourt where there is no change of possession. I guess that the "rule" was too difficult for some of our officials to comprehend. Some would follow it with no problems, others would have problems, like not switching on a player control foul (not in the backcourt, possession changes), and having problems on rebounding fouls (possession, or no possession). This led to some awkward moments where one official started to make a switch and the other stayed. So after two years, we went back to switching on all fouls.

We've also added a few of our own "Connecticut only" signals over the years. We've added a supplemental “Intentional Foul: Excessive Contact” (Hard Foul) signal in our high school games. And we've added a “Shooter Has Foot Touching Three Point Line” signal. Connecticut is an IAABO state, and these are not accepted IAABO signals.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6001/...942a16cb_m.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5274/...b354c999_m.jpg

Right now we're experimenting with different boundary responsibilities in a two person game.

We're not stuck in time. In our little corner of Connecticut, evolution supersedes revolution.

Interesting changes over the past few years in my little corner of the world. We had an evaluation system - both here and at the State tournaments - that was very heavily weighted toward using the proper NFHS mechanics. So some of the better play-calling officials (they call a better game!) were being left out of final rounds of District, Regional, and State tournaments because they were weaker on NFHS mechanics and used a few NCAA mechanics that have been mentioned here (2 hand reporting, no stop clock signal on oob, etc.). The coaches and AD's wanted to know what was going on, and asked for the evaluation system to change. They want the better officials, not necessarily the ones with the best NFHS mechanics. I know the two are not mutually exclusive, but advancing someone just because they put their hand up over someone who is a better official is just silly.

And to those who would argue that they should be able to remember which mechanics to use in which gym - that's not always as easy as it is to say. In a bang-bang play, habits kick in sometimes.

If an official can work a HS game on Friday and work a HS game and understand all those mechanics, then go that Saturday and work a college game in the afternoon, with another HS game that evening, then an official can work with both mechanic sets. It is not impossible or difficult as people want to make it. And I will say this again; this is primarily a Women's college official issue. Men's college does not have all these differences from HS mechanics, but maybe 2 hand reporting. And two hand reporting is not allowed in many places at the Men's college level.

Peace

I agree with everything you said....I just have a beef with those that choose to not do the mechanics...not those that do something out of habit. By all means, the best game official should be doing the game, but when all else is equal (or close), they should advance the one who is also doing the right mechanics too.

I totally understand what you are saying. However, I personally like to take a common sense approach to things. I am not two nine, I'm twenty nine (not really that young). I don't want to change the way I communicate out of tradition if it goes against what is common sense. This is smaller than a small detail, but I have seen it matter. Since we have other things to worry about, why not do what comes naturally and say the number?

I just had a seriously twisted moment and thought about how the different things we are talking about impact quality. ISO 9000 and corrective actions floated through my head. I need a vacation.