Two-Person "Ball Side Mechanic" ? ? ?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

I use it every two-person game I work. It's worth it for the better look underneath.

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.

[APG]

Yes I'll use ball-side mechanic in two man. The benefits, IMO, outweigh the possible shortfalls in going strong side. But alas, two man is always a practice in compromise.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

Yes I'll use ball-side mechanic in two man. The benefits, IMO, outweigh the possible shortfalls in going strong side. But alas, two man is always a practice in compromise.

Agree....use it EVERY HS game. Expecting the trail to have a good look at post play on his/her side when the entry pass is made is an exercise in guessing and looking at it across the lane at the back of players by the lead is no better.

[JRutledge]

We teach it in our state and I teach in the clinics I work or the class I run. I hardly see anyone actually use it and I am sure it is because it requires a little more hustle. I do not work enough 2 person games so I admit I do not even use, but probably would if I worked regular 2 person games.

Peace

[Freddy]

From the widespread response, I better seriously consider how we do it here.

Reasons I don't prefer it:
1) If covering players out and away from the free throw lane, where it's likely that T has "the slot" anyway, there seems to be a lack of ability to observe players deep in the post. A wide angle and shifting eyes can probably take care of that concern.
2) The quick pass toward the lane that gets away and threatens to go OOB on the lead's original side seems difficult to properly cover. A sprint over to the other side could probably ameliorate that.

I guess we here have hesitated to use it because we expect the trail to work deep and take the call deep in the post on his side where he can, like the 3-man C, step down or in to keep "the slot". However, I can see why, unless the lead transitions across, he'll be straightlined on a drive to the basket from T's area on the side opposite lead. Then again, that's a call we kinda have come to expect a deep-working 2-man trail to get, just like a C has to take it if it happens more quickly than the 3-man L can rotate.

I'm gonna rethink our whole thought process on this due to the confident responses of the group here.

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by APG

Yes I'll use ball-side mechanic in two man. The benefits, IMO, outweigh the possible shortfalls in going strong side. But alas, two man is always a practice in compromise.

This.

[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.

[BigT]

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.

Isn't Utah going to allow this practice because of the changes this year by the NFHS?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[billyu2]

Definitely would recommend and encourage 2 person officials to use this mechanic for two reasons: Better angle on ballside post play and if the prospect for 3 person officiating is on the horizon you might as well get confident in doing it. And, in response to rsl, if the swing pass to the opposite side is above foul line extended it is still the trail's primary and he/she should know who touched the ball last if it goes OB and the Lead needs help on that sideline. Really not that difficult of a mechanic IMO.

[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.