Say what?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I know more about quantum physics than I do about recent NFHS mechanics.

Originally Posted by OKREF

We bump a timeout. Never had an evaluater say anything about it.

Allowed under NFHS mechanics, or just a local mechanic?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Allowed under NFHS mechanics, or just a local mechanic?

Not everything is regulated by mechanics.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not everything is regulated by mechanics.

Thus my reference to a "local mechanic". Here in Connecticut we point to the three point line when a shooter has stepped on the line. We also use the "hard foul" signal. I believe that both are local to Connecticut, and are not approved by IAABO.

[tomegun]

Dear God, thank you for ordering my steps in locations other than Connecticut. It is not that the state or the people are bad. It is just that I like to officiate and I know that there are some things in officiating that are important and some that aren't. You know me better than anyone else and you know nitpicking at me about those small things would not work out too well.

Amen.

[JRutledge]

Again, it is not a "mechanic" to signal to your partner to come to you. Or better yet there are not mechanics that I am aware of that suggest we even talk. Not everything is a mechanic if we choose to do so or even communicate on some things. It just drives me crazy when people worry about what is approved than officiating. You are telling me someone in your area is going to get upset because someone signaled their partner to come to them? This sounds about as silly as when I was signaling a 1 and 1 to my partner in a summer game and one of my partners who has a problem getting varsity games of any kind, was worried about the way I held my hands and the fact that my fingers were not perfectly straight. He did this while not worrying about why he missed a BC violation which he was the Trail and was the only one that had the match-up in question. Maybe I am wrong, but I guess I will never understand why people always worry about what is a mechanic rather than learning to just do your job. And if I have to signal to my partner to come and talk with me, I doubt anyone I have ever been around would give a damn if the mechanic is in the book at either the HS or college level. Never had anyone complain at a camp for sure.

BTW, many officials I know and work with use the pointing to the floor signal all the time. No one cares if it is not listed anywhere. There are bigger fish to fry I guess. And no we are not IAABO affiliated at all.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, it is not a "mechanic" to signal to your partner to come to you. Or better yet there are not mechanics that I am aware of that suggest we even talk. Not everything is a mechanic if we choose to do so or even communicate on some things.

+1

I'll add that there are times to deviate from the "officially approved" mechanics. Just know why you are doing it and (as appropriate) be sure all officials are on the same page.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are telling me someone in your area is going to get upset because someone signaled their partner to come to them? This sounds about as silly ... if I have to signal to my partner to come and talk with me, I doubt anyone I have ever been around would give a damn if the mechanic is in the book.

I was being facetious. It was obviously very poorly worded, and I apologize for taking up your time with a my silliness. At least tomegun got it. The clue should have been "Trying To Get The Frankenstein's Monster Signal Approved Also".

Again, my point, that I certainly could have done a much beter job of expressing: If a official with the basketball (or just the basketball, which is rarely used, but acceptable, in my little corner of Connecticut) is at the throwin spot, then there will never be a problem with a coach not knowing where the throwin will occur.
__________________

[JRutledge]

If anyone wasted my time, it was me.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I was being facetious. It was obviously very poorly worded, and I apologize for taking up your time with a my silliness. At least tomegun got it. The clue should have been "Trying To Get The Frankenstein's Monster Signal Approved Also".

Again, my point, that I certainly could have done a much beter job of expressing: If a official with the basketball (or just the basketball, which is rarely used, but acceptable, in my little corner of Connecticut) is at the throwin spot, then there will never be a problem with a coach not knowing where the throwin will occur.
__________________

But you said that in Connecticutt the non-administering official never goes to the throw-in spot. That the administering official has to leave the ball at the throw-in spot to facilitate any conversations.

Am I wrong in that inference?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

But you said that in Connecticut the non-administering official never goes to the throw-in spot. That the administering official has to leave the ball at the throw-in spot to facilitate any conversations.

We have been told that, during a timeout, if the administering official, who is on a boundary line, wants to initiate a conversation with his partner, who is on the division line, that the administering official should leave the ball on the boundary line as he moves toward his partner. Usually the nonadministering official will move toward his partner also, meeting somewhere near the free throw line, or three point line. In a real noisy gymnasium, and we have several of those, if the administering official can't get his partner's attention, then he may end up moving all the way to the division line. In either case, we leave the ball on the boundary line.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Allowed under NFHS mechanics, or just a local mechanic?

Local mechanic. NFHS does say the mechanic is for the official who called the timeout to administer the time out. However, if I on the endline call the timeout and we are going the length of the floor, my partner will administer the timeout and I would stay where the ball will be inbounded, preventing a "long switch". Saves steps. We always have one person at the spot of the throw in during any time out. There is no dispute as to where the ball will be inbounded.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by OKREF

However, if I on the endline call the timeout and we are going the length of the floor, my partner will administer the timeout and I would stay where the ball will be inbounded, preventing a "long switch". Saves steps. We always have one person at the spot of the throw in during any time out. There is no dispute as to where the ball will be inbounded.

We used to be able to do this, calling it "bumping the timeout", but then it got changed to having to go from the endline, to the reporting area, and then back to the endline, with our partner taking his spot at the division line.

I can't remember if it was changed under NFHS mechanics (that we use to use several years ago), or our newer IAABO mechanics.

I do remember our local interpreter telling us the reason for the change, because there were some mistakes taking place during the "bump". Official 1 grants a request for a timeout to Team A, it gets "bumped" to his partner, who happens to be closer to the table, and Official 2 reports the timeout as charged to Team B. That's how the reasoning was explained to us. With no "bumping", Official 1 grants the request for the timeout, and he's the one who reports the timeout to be charged to Team A. No chance for a mistake.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We used to be able to do this, calling it "bumping the timeout", but then it got changed to having to go from the endline, to the reporting area, and then back to the endline, with our partner taking his spot at the division line.

I can't remember if it was changed under NFHS mechanic, or our newer IAABO mechanics.

I do remember our local interpreter telling us the reason for the change, because there were some mistakes taking place during the "bump". Official 1 grants a request for a timeout to Team A, it gets "bumped" to his partner, who happens to be closer to the table, and Official 2 reports the timeout as charged to Team B. That's how the reasoning was explained to us. With no "bumping", Official 1 grants the request for the timeout, and he's the one who reports the timeout to be charged to Team A. No chance for a mistake.

Needs to be communication between the two officials for sure, to avoid any confusion. I don't think it is the "Official" NFHS mechanic, but like I said, I have never been questioned about it. I have been calling with the same partner for almost 10 years, so we pretty much know exactly were the other is going to be at all times.