Mechanics Question

[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.