Mechanics Question

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Written mechanics are simply guides to how to do things. I know of no one that follows them to the letter.

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.

[Adam]

That's not an IAABO issue, Billy.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

That's not an IAABO issue.

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.

[Adam]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Adam

It seems some flexibility is a good thing.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

The problem is mechanics honestly did not cover this play. Two officials could have called that situation easily and some would make a case that the C in that play could have called something as well. And all of them should have been aware of the clock and none of those advance techniques are covered in regular mechanics.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The sideline coverage needs to be 100% the same for everyone.

(Note: Connecticut is predominantly a two person state.)

It isn't here in my little corner of Connecticut. Every pregame will usually include some discussion about how far "down" the lead wants to cover for out of bounds responsibilities on his side in a half court set. Free throw line extended? Division line? Backcourt endline? Then we have to discuss the same sideline in a transition game.

Back in the olden days of old NFHS mechanics, the lead had the sideline all the way back to the backcourt endline, in both a halfcourt set, as well as the transition game. Period. End of discussion, actually, no discussion. I know that this meant calling a line outside of one's primary coverage area, but we got it right almost every time, and when we didn't the trail would offer "assistance" after the call.

We were "robots", as JRutledge so elegantly stated earlier, but back then the out of bounds call was made with very little "thinking". The ball went out of bounds, a whistle was sounded to stop the clock, a call was made, the call was usually correct, and when it wasn't, it was corrected. Easy peasey lemon squeezy.

Now, with the new IAABO mechanics, we have to "think" about whether or not we're in a halfcourt set, or in a transition, then we have to figure out where our responsibility ends (free throw line extended, division line, endline). We also have to figure out what we discussed back in the locker room before the game. Once we got that all figured out, then we may, or may not, sound our whistle for what used to be one of the easiest calls to make in a game.

With the old fashioned NFHS mechanics there was always an immediate, decisive whistle to stop the clock. Only one whistle. Always. With the new IAABO mechanics, there will occasionally be a double whistle, hopefully not a double call, and hopefully not opposite direction calls. Then we'll occasionally get a pregnant pause before a whistle is sounded, certainly not a very decisive call.

And yes, as I stated earlier, I know that the old fashioned NFHS mechanics meant calling a line outside of one's primary coverage area, but, again, we got it right almost every time, and when we didn't the trail would offer help to correct the call.

Thanks to all Forum members for allowing me to rant and rave about one of my pet peeves. Now would somebody please help me down from my soapbox. It's kind of high up here and I'm not as young as I used to be.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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... Peace

I'm with you JRut...I'd probably take a guy that can "call the game" over the guy that can do things the "proper way"...

...but, how about a guy that can do both?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

I'm with you JRut...I'd probably take a guy that can "call the game" over the guy that can do things the "proper way"...

...but, how about a guy that can do both?

Nothing wrong with doing both. I just do not think anyone does everything to the letter as the book states. I have yet to see someone give the proper PC Foul sequence even if they start off properly.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have yet to see someone give the proper PC Foul sequence even if they start off properly.

Many here in my little corner of Connecticut include the team control punch.