For IAABO Members's Eyes Only ...

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by APG

Don't get the thinking behind taking away a signal that gives additional information...its use can only help an official.

We're taught the thinking is: "If the official's not counting, the player is not closely guarded." So we are told not to use it.

FWIW, I agree with you APG.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Maineac

We're taught the thinking is: "If the official's not counting, the player is not closely guarded." So we are told not to use it.

FWIW, I agree with you APG.

The common use of this signal seems more beneficial from what I'd hope might be the perspective of a coach (as sensed back when I was one). When a coach sees the "Not Closely Guarded" signal used, that gives visible evidence that the official is actively engaged in the action. Without its use the coach doesn't readily know if active engagement is existent on the part of the responsible official or not. Or at least he can't be quite as sure.
Enough of stating the obvious by one not affiliated with IAABO, thus not permitted to participate in the thread anyway because it wasn't for my eyes to begin with.

[Adam]

I'm still using it, as I deem appropriate, until I'm told not to.