Two-Person "Ball Side Mechanic" ? ? ?

[Freddy]

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?

[grunewar]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Freddy

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 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.

[Welpe]

What Adam said.

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.

[johnny d]

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.

[Adam]

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