Sorry, I meant when making the initial call. I agree, "illegal screen" at the table while reporting.

I'm pretty sure both the IAABO and NFHS manuals still say to verbalize the color and number of the fouler at the spot. Which would logically go after "illegal" verbal at the spot, I think.

Can honestly say I've never verbalized color and number at the spot of the foul. I'd guess that portion of the mechanics would be an area thing as far as following it.

Area/conference, to be sure. I couldn't get hired by a certain suprvisor without doing it every time. Now it's habit. Eliminates ever losing the fouler when done, though, which is nice.

Like I have said before, written mechanics are simply guides to how to do things. I know of no one that follows them to the letter or even when it is said they are required, stops hiring people that do not do them perfectly. I really do not know why we spend so much time trying to be so precise when at the end of the day you need to actually officiate and not say a particular word in the right order. Usually we tweak those things in camp and if someone does them close to perfect they might stand out.

Peace

His Way Or The Highway ...
 

During the first twenty years of my thirty-one year career, our local board, under the leadership of our veteran interpreter, used NFHS mechanics. We followed the NFHS mechanics, positioning, signaling, switching, rotations, line responsibilities, etc. "to the letter". If a question came up as to how do do something in regard to mechanics, we went to the NFHS mechanics manual for the answer.

That interpreter has since retired, and we have switched from NFHS mechanics to IAABO mechanics. We have also lost our consistency. Out of bounds line responsibilities, especially sideline responsibilities for the lead official, vary from game to game depending on who your partner is. Player control foul signals vary from partner to partner. Team control foul signals seem to be optional. Last season I almost gave the ball to the wrong team because my partner failed to signal the team control foul punch. When the ball goes out of bounds off the offesnive team near the division line, or there's a back court violation near the division line, whether, or not, the old lead runs the length of the court and becomes the new lead doesn't depend on exactly where the ball will be put into play, but rather, depends on who you happen to be working with that night.

Every night is a new adventure. There is something to be said for dictator like interpreters.

That's not an IAABO issue, Billy.

Why Not?
 

Like I have said before . . . it doesn't need to be an either/or. It can and should, if an expectation in your area, be a both/and.

Just An Old Fashioned Guy ...
 

To a great extent, you are correct, however the IAABO mechanics manual just isn't as good as the old NFHS mechanics manual. The old NFHS mechanics were pretty definitive in wording, with no need for any individual interpretation. IAABO mechanics seem to be more "open" and allow more interpretation of the "guidelines".

Example A: Backcourt violation, with ball to be inbounded just one foot into the old backcourt, old trail's side. According to the old NFHS mechanics it was very clear that the old lead would run the length of the court to become the new lead. I don't believe that this is spelled out in the IAABO mechanics manual.

Example B: Lead out of bounds responsibilities. According to the old NFHS mechanics it was very clear that the lead would be responsible for the entire sideline all the way back to the backcourt endline, in both a transition game, and in the half court game. IAABO mechanics leave this open to interpretation, and never define responsibilities during the transition game.

Example C: Old NFHS mechanics dictated that the administering official on a throwin always used the "box in" principle, that is, official, ball, partner, always. IAABO mechanics make this optional.

Now keep in mind that I haven't looked at a NFHS mechanics manual in about ten years, and also keep in mind that Connecticut is basically a two person state.

Excedrin Headache Number Thirteen ...
 

Pleases excuse me. I'll be away from my computer for a few minutes while I get two aspirin, and maybe a beer, or two.

I guess I don't see these issues as problems, let alone problems that couldn't be solved by local dictate.

Do you really need those three spelled out? With the second two, it seems some flexibility is a good thing.

Uniformity ...
 

Funny that you should use the word "dictate". Our local board has moved from a dictatorial leadership style, for business, and basketball, to more democratic leadership style. Most of this has been for the good, and for the betterment of our local board. However, in terms of basketball, interpretations of both rules, and mechanics, have become more individual, and, thus, less uniform.

You are correct, partners can adjust to each other, that is, be more flexible. I guess that my problem is that I like uniformity, in both the interpretation of rules, and mechanics. In my old fashioned opinion, uniformity is, or was, a good thing, in both working the game, and in teaching the game to new officials.

Back in the olden days, if someone, veteran, or rookie, had a question on a particular mechanic, the answer was easy, just look it up in the NFHS manual. That's the way it was done. Period. As JRutledge stated earlier, "to the letter".

Just An Example ...
 

I'm not saying that this this a bad mechanic. I was just using it as an example of how the IAABO mechanics are more "open" than the old NFHS mechanics.

We really shouldn't be so flexible on who covers what from game to game. The sideline coverage needs to be 100% the same for everyone.

All you have to do is go back and watch the Higgins/Burr situation from a couple of years ago to see what happens when the officials both think someone else is covering a line.

100% signal/wording uniformity is a lot less important than coverage, but it sure makes things a lot easier when you don't have to figure out what the heck your partner just signaled.

Do not take what I said so literally. I am talking more about if someone uses a word not in the book or if they give the PC foul out of sequence. Better yet someone gets stuck on the fact the book might say the T or C has all 3 point shots attempts, but someone teaches to help out as the lead in transition. Or better yet if their hand is not perfect to the picture. Some people take those things too far IMO and try to make us into complete robots.

I worked with someone over the summer in kind of a camp setting where I was asked to fill in as I was a clinician. I had a guy so concerned because when I gave the signal for 1 and 1, it was not perfect to the letter instead of worrying about why he missed an obvious over and back call. There is a limit to what is important and many things people seem to get up in arms over are not that important. Of course you should teach things the proper way and in the proper sequence, but overall I want someone that can call the game consistently and the mechanics will show some confidence. But we have basic signals that should be used for communication purposes. But if someone does a signal out of place I still can tell if they called as long as they are communicating.

I am not suggesting someone calling a TC foul and not using a team control foul and if that happen in your game that is not quite what I am referring to.

Peace