Mechanics Question

[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.