Two-Person "Ball Side Mechanic" ? ? ?
 

Reviewing some resources for newbies today and came across the NFHS two-person ball side mechanic where the lead transitions across the lane to trail's side when all the action is over there.
I've always avoided doing this for what I consider to be a couple of good reasons.

My question to you who regularly do two-person:
Are there any of you who utilize this mechanic on a regular basis?

My question to you if you, like me, avoid this mechanic:
Why do you avoid it?

I've never done it or even seen it done.

Only time I do two-person now is in Rec Ball, and we have enough to worry about with junior, inexperienced officials not knowing the Fed or league rules; not positioning themselves correctly; calling all over the floor or not blowing the whistle enough; etc. to concern myself with this.

I use it every two-person game I work. I occasionally find myself hustling back to the other side, but it's worth it for the better look underneath.

What Adam said.

Was My Face Red ...
 

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.

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.

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

Ch, Ch, Ch, Ch, Changes?
 

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.

This.

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.

Use it!
 

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.

The odds of this mechanic helping get a better view of post play significantly outweigh the chance of getting burned on your sideline. Marking a three is way less likely than making a decision on contact in the post. I don't cross until the ball is in the post, that minimizes the potential for regret.

It has been many years since i have worked 2-man games at the HS level, but I think you are rotating much too late if you wait for the ball to be in the post. You would be much better served getting over there early and officiating the entire play if there is a competitive match-up that needs to be officiated.

You're probably right. I'm a lot slower to cross in two than I am in three.

Agree.

If the ball is out on the opposite side perimeter and there is a post up situation on the far side, the trail isn't going to be able to cover both and it is much more likely the ball is coming into that post than being skip passed to the other sideline such that there would need to be immediate coverage....and if there is a play the ball will take a while to get there and the trail can pick up a lot of them (if they're across the top).

I use it almost every game.

If a TI is from the T's FC sideline, and usually deep (3pt and below), then I start in this position.

If the T side has many players and/or the next pass is to the post and the T wouldn't have a good look at it, then I'm over.

I'm lucky in that I still have wheels, so getting back over to cover my sideline is not an issue.

Over the past eight years here, the one (the only) official I've seen use this mechanic, a guy from a nearby neighboring state assigned to a JV game in our area, would come across, then double up the observation on the competitive matchup outside near the sideline, a matchup the trail had anyway, viturally turning his back on the post matchups behind him. I wasn't impressed.

Properly, speaking, with the ball out on trail's wing and a competitive matchup deep in trail's post, when lead comes across, how far does he go? And does he turn his shoulders square to that post matchup like a three-man lead in a similar situation?

I'm starting to see the attractiveness of this. Like.

Wow! No wonder you didn't like the mechanic. Yes, the lead comes across the lane area extended similar to 3 person just far enough to get a good post play angle. We have been taught to keep shoulders square to the endline. Also, if the lead rotates back due to ball reversal, don't be too quick to "turn out the lights" on the room you are leaving.

I turn my shoulders, normally about 45 degrees, towards my sideline, when I cross. It reminds me that I need to go back. Also, I'm only there for the post, so turning my shoulders towards the post tells the trail that I am not looking at that outside matchup.

Watch old video of NBA games when they did 2 person. The lead was constantly ball side in the post.

I concur with this method.

One of the main reasons we are taught to keep shoulders square to the endline is to help widen our angle of vision to include a potential drive toward the endline (between 3pt. line and lane line) from the wing. The dribbler/defender are now moving away from the trail and into the lead's PCA. The lead must be able to pick this up without having to look over his outside shoulder. This would apply to 2 or 3 person.

I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather be out of position on a OOB play because I was refereeing two post players take may (or may not) kicking the living ahem *stuff* out of each other.

One of my favorite observers always said "Players can hurt us, the ball doesn't."

And BTW FIBA 2 person does want you to cross the floor as L and referee plays as the same side of the T when the play dictates.

It was said by a previous poster - 2 person mechanics and positioning is about compromise.

Good responses!
 

Due to the widespread and popular use of this mechanic outside our area, and given the solid reasoning and detailed explanations of those who responded, we will begin implementation of the Two-Person Ball Side Mechanic beginning at a rookies pre-season meeting tonight.
It just makes good sense.

I should get out more often.

Varsity is all three-person here. The newer officials doing sub-level ought to catch on readily. The veterans who do two-person--that might be a slightly harder sell, but will try. Those who've done three-person before shouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Thank you for your superb responses.

You'd Better Watch Out ...
 

Be careful. We're a predominantly two person state, and we've been using the ball side mechanic for as long as I can remember, but we don't introduce it to rookies (cadets). We don't introduce it until they have completed their first year, and only then do we introduce them to this concept. And we tell rookies (cadets) that they may see it if they observe a varsity game, but not to use it, and to concentrate on the more basic procedures in the two person game.

caveat dux
 

I will heed your warning and be full of care. Personnel tonight are not rookies but newer officials, each of whom has been well trained in 3-man already. I'll be judicious when it comes to the newbies later on in the month.

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.

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

Interesting, but my thought is that I'm not going over there to officiate the wing. I'm over there to officiate the post players. The players on the wing are still the trail's players, and if they drive to the post, he'll get the drive. If, however, there is a secondary defender involved, I'll have that since he's already in the post.

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?

The Smoldering Embers of My Former Rationale
 

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.

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.

Follow Up Report
 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.