Two-Person "Ball Side Mechanic" ? ? ?

[Adam]

Freddy,
I'm curious about something. You'd noted that you felt you had good reasons for avoiding the mechanic. Would you care to share those reasons for the betterment of the group?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Adam

Freddy,
I'm curious about something. You'd noted that you felt you had good reasons for avoiding the mechanic. Would you care to share those reasons for the betterment of the group?

1) None of the four or five camps popular in our state even mentioned it in their two-man sessions, that I can discern from those who were in them
2) Nobody I've seen in our area does it
3) Only example of it I've seen here was a guy from a nearby neighboring state who was doing it but was crossing over to observe the match-up out on the wing which his trail had anyway, completely ignoring what was going on behind him in the post as he fixated on action that wasn't his
4) Leeriness over the perceived inability to cover original sideline in case of a skip pass that got away, for instance

But I Have Seen the Light! (Kinda like Joliet Jake in the James Brown church scene). I've been won over by the well-founded defense of the mechanic by highly esteemed posters above. I see how it particularly solves the similar problem I have when our three-man lead, having not yet rotated, reaches over in C's paint and gets a foul call wrong many times due to his being straight-lined. For the two-man crew, the lead, prompt to transition across to view the slot between those two players at the low post from the T's side, has an easier call or no-call to make than a stepped-down or stepped-in trail, methinks. I'm not worried about my above concerns anymore.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Welpe

On the other side of the coin, they taught it to the rookies here and I started using it in my first games. I think both approaches have merit.

I think it should be taught to rookies. It is much harder to get them to change to doing it later then it is to do it right from the start.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it should be taught to rookies. It is much harder to get them to change to doing it later then it is to do it right from the start.

If the prime reason for proper court positioning is . . .
to be in the right place
at the right time
in order to see the right thing
to make the right call (which might be a no-call)
(which is an expression I find myself using more and more lately),
then this ball side mechanic is purely natural.

I introduced it tonight to a group of three newer officials (who are well schooled in three-man mechanics) with whom I'll be working two-man sub-level games this year and their first comment was, "Hey, that's just like why the lead in three-man needs to rotate."
I appreciated their impulsive remark.
They won't have any trouble adopting the ball-side mechanic for two-man.

Thanx again to all for the responses.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

If the prime reason for proper court positioning is . . .
to be in the right place
at the right time
in order to see the right thing
to make the right call (which might be a no-call)
(which is an expression I find myself using more and more lately),
then this ball side mechanic is purely natural.

I introduced it tonight to a group of three newer officials (who are well schooled in three-man mechanics) with whom I'll be working two-man sub-level games this year and their first comment was, "Hey, that's just like why the lead in three-man needs to rotate."
I appreciated their impulsive remark.
They won't have any trouble adopting the ball-side mechanic for two-man.

Thanx again to all for the responses.

The biggest difference is realizing they have to go back before there is post play back on their original side (they go back when there is no longer post play on the trail's side), when the ball transitions to the other end, or when a pass is made towards their sideline.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by rsl

Here in Utah we have a mason-dixon line. South of Provo, the southern utah associations swear by it. In the north, it is almost forbidden. One year I went to two clinics and got dinged on evaluations in the north for going ball side and in the south for NOT going ball side.

The biggest liability for going ball side is that a quick swing pass catches you out of position and it is impossible to cover the far line or mark a three in the corner. But, I will still cross over if I have two physical big men pushing on each other on the ball side.

I dont know... I think it depends on the game yournpartners and pregames. I use it in my games when necessary .. It is better to call a foul from thenstrong side from three feet away than from trail 30'feet away or across the paint.

There is a reason this is in the mechanics book and should be used as appropriate. In a gamemwith a lot of zone and skip passing it may not be appropriate but in a man to man matchup it will work better

[ref3808]

In MA the majority of our games are 2-man. (Three in the MIAA tournament)

I would say about 30% of our board use this mechanic. I like it and think the benefit of being ball side in for post play outweighs the risks of missing something on the "weak" side.

I always tell my partner in pregame that I am going to use this mechanic if I feel I need to get a better look.

A few years ago at an IAABO school this mechanic was really being pushed. Those who didn't use it were dinged on their evaluations pretty consistently.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Same here in my little corner of the Constitution State. Twice, in over thirty years, as the lead moving to the strong side, I've forgotten that I have to get back over to the weak side after a turnover, to find myself trailing my partner, now the new lead, on his side of the basket line. Not too bad, only twice, in over thirty years, but, never the less, still very embarrassing.

Don't be embarrassed. No one even noticed, (except maybe your partner and they have probably done it too and understand.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by rsl

Here in Utah we have a mason-dixon line. South of Provo, the southern utah associations swear by it. In the north, it is almost forbidden. One year I went to two clinics and got dinged on evaluations in the north for going ball side and in the south for NOT going ball side.

The biggest liability for going ball side is that a quick swing pass catches you out of position and it is impossible to cover the far line or mark a three in the corner. But, I will still cross over if I have two physical big men pushing on each other on the ball side.

That may have been the case but i think the thinking is changing. I work in the northern part of Utah and when I asked the lead evaluator about it he said to do it. Also, at Mike Petty's (Head varsity assigner) camp this summer they emphasised that we do it.

I started fiddling with it last season and really like it. I cover this in pregame as well with my partners as they may not be comfortable with it, just so they know I am not crazy.

[rsl]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I think it depends on the game your partners and pregames.

Actually, Kelvin, I think it was you who taught me this mechanic in a clinic a few years ago. And, the clinic was in the north, so you must be right. It depends on the crowd.

In any case, I am going to put it on the list of things to work on this year.

[Freddy]

Well that went over like the proverbial t*&d in a punchbowl. Facilitated pre-season rules meeting last nite and ran my suggestion that we in our area begin to work on instituting the ball side mechanic in our 2-man games (which are all sublevel). Of those present, every single veteran, how can I put this mildly?, revolted against it in outspoken fashion. Shucks, I thought I explained it pretty darn good, too. Cited forum evidence of its widespread use in other areas, to no avail.
May still put some effort into it with selected crews with whom I've got sublevel games who "get it" and we'll see how it goes.
Thanx for all the input on this topic here. I sent all participants the link to this thread. Maybe your influence can sway 'em.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Well that went over like the proverbial t*&d in a punchbowl. Facilitated pre-season rules meeting last nite and ran my suggestion that we in our area begin to work on instituting the ball side mechanic in our 2-man games (which are all sublevel). Of those present, every single veteran, how can I put this mildly?, revolted against it in outspoken fashion. Shucks, I thought I explained it pretty darn good, too. Cited forum evidence of its widespread use in other areas, to no avail.
May still put some effort into it with selected crews with whom I've got sublevel games who "get it" and we'll see how it goes.
Thanx for all the input on this topic here. I sent all participants the link to this thread. Maybe your influence can sway 'em.

With things like that, you may just have to write off the old guard and get the new guys to do it (as long as they old guard doesn't generate conflict as a result). The newer officials (and those willing to change) can do it, the others can stay with their ways until they move on. There isn't any major obstacle to doing it partly. The official that is going ball side is the one that has to adjust the most.

[Adam]

In my two-person games, i pregame this mechanic, just so the T doesn't panic. Then again, it's taught here by most of the vets.