For IAABO Members's Eyes Only ...

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Warning. This thread is about to be hijacked.

...sorry Billy...hoped you wouldn't mind.

(probably doesn't really matter anyway...I think good ol' BBR has me "locked out")

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...I like it...

...btw BBR...you've been around the block a time or two...jumping threads here a little...

what's your take on my State of Washington's interp of a "stationary elbow"?...IOW the elbow can be stationary during a pivot.

We were told to handle it in the same way Bob summarized.

IOW, how can it be a stationary elbow if the player is pivoting at the hips?


We now return you to "Let's make fun of the IAABO."

[refiator]

Never been a fan of using signals for things that aren't happening.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by refiator

Never been a fan of using signals for things that aren't happening.

I guess I understand that, but this signal just clarifies you do not have a count and why. And if you do not have a count, as Bob says people assume other things. And you do not use it all the time. You only use the signal when a player is standing there and you have decided that they are not within 6 feet. You do not use it just when you should not have a count. The signal is very specific.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by refiator

Never been a fan of using signals for things that aren't happening.

I love the signal that we use for "halfway through halftime", the toilet flushing.

[Welpe]

I like signals that help remove ambiguity.

[hoopguy]

At my IAABO interpreters meeting, we were not told to never use the signal and I did not realize it had been taken out of the book until I read your post. The big discussion on the 'not closely guarded' signal was that it was a not working and the closely guarded count was not being enforced correctly and is a POE this year. The guest interpreter who spoke at our meeting, used the example of a mens college game he had watched on tape where the ref was using the not closely guarded signal and the 2 players the ref was signalling for were inside his outstreched arms. Obvioiusly, he was using the signal incorrectly. I would guess that the closely guarded POE and it not being enforced correctly is the reason IAABO took the signal oout of their book this year. What I took away from my meeting was it was okay to use the signal but be very careful and be sure you are accurate. Six feet from toe to toe is a lot farther apart than refs have been calling/counting.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The "not closely guarded" signal is the stupidest mechanic ever and I have never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) used it in any game where it is sanctioned for use (both high school and college). When I was a very young basketball official (I know, I have never been young), an older official, who I consider one of my mentors, told me that when you officiate, "you have nothing until you have something." If I do have a "closely guarded situation" then I am visually counting and if I do not have a "closely guarded situation" then I am not visually counting.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

At my IAABO interpreters meeting, we were not told to never use the signal and I did not realize it had been taken out of the book until I read your post. The big discussion on the 'not closely guarded' signal was that it was a not working and the closely guarded count was not being enforced correctly and is a POE this year. The guest interpreter who spoke at our meeting, used the example of a mens college game he had watched on tape where the ref was using the not closely guarded signal and the 2 players the ref was signalling for were inside his outstreched arms. Obvioiusly, he was using the signal incorrectly. I would guess that the closely guarded POE and it not being enforced correctly is the reason IAABO took the signal oout of their book this year. What I took away from my meeting was it was okay to use the signal but be very careful and be sure you are accurate. Six feet from toe to toe is a lot farther apart than refs have been calling/counting.

If an official is not correctly gauging the required distance, then I don't know how taking out a signal is going to help him/her correctly start enforcing the distance.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

We were told to handle it in the same way Bob summarized.

IOW, how can it be a stationary elbow if the player is pivoting at the hips?

...gotcha...but I gotta tell ya, I don't mind the way our State has interpreted this because I don't mind calling a PC foul when a player PIVOTS WITH THE BALL and contacts the defender. I just don't see the need for an INTENTIONAL FOUL here if indeed it was not INTENTIONAL...understanding that NFHS has "CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS" a POE.

Oh well...

...thanks again, Billy, for the oportunity to hijack.

btw...I used the "not closely gurarded" signal (albeit RARELY and in regular season games) before it was "LEGAL"...a great communication tool.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

Six feet from toe to toe is a lot farther apart than refs have been calling/counting.

This was also covered at our conference on Saturday. The presenter -- a board interpreter from central Maine -- used a tape measure to illustrate the very point hoopguy mentions. The interpreter held the tape measure at waist level, pulled out the tape, and instructed "stop me when I reach six feet." Most of us told him to stop at the right time.

As for the not-closely-guarded signal, I could take it or leave it. I don't find it to be the stupidest mechanic (that's another thread), but I don't see what's so ambiguous about not doing it. If the official isn't counting, shouldn't we rightfully assume he's still engaged?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...gotcha...but I gotta tell ya, I don't mind the way our State has interpreted this because I don't mind calling a PC foul when a player PIVOTS WITH THE BALL and contacts the defender. I just don't see the need for an INTENTIONAL FOUL here if indeed it was not INTENTIONAL...understanding that NFHS has "CONTACT ABOVE THE SHOULDERS" a POE.

Oh well...

...thanks again, Billy, for the oportunity to hijack.

btw...I used the "not closely gurarded" signal (albeit RARELY and in regular season games) before it was "LEGAL"...a great communication tool.

Maybe it's just Colorado and Washington who are sticking to that NFHS PPT slide.