Long Switches

[Eastshire]

Maybe it's just the soccer referee in me, but I just don't understand all the work put into avoiding long switches on fouls. There isn't anything really long on a basketball court.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Maybe it's just the soccer referee in me, but I just don't understand all the work put into avoiding long switches on fouls. There isn't anything really long on a basketball court.

It's not the distance. To me, there are switches that look/feel natural and those that look/feel forced.

Let's say I call a foul as the trail in the front court, table side. Ball's going to be inbounded at the bench, front court, table-side.

What's the sense in me calling the foul and then forcing a switch after reporting? Give me the ball and let's inbound and get the game going again. Instead, I'm supposed to report the foul and then become the lead opposite the table?

I'm happy to do either, but it just makes sense to me to not switch in this situation.

I get that this isn't a long switch -- not all goofy switches are long switches, IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's not the distance. To me, there are switches that look/feel natural and those that look/feel forced.

Let's say I call a foul as the trail in the front court, table side. Ball's going to be inbounded at the bench, front court, table-side.

What's the sense in me calling the foul and then forcing a switch after reporting? Give me the ball and let's inbound and get the game going again. Instead, I'm supposed to report the foul and then become the lead opposite the table?

I'm happy to do either, but it just makes sense to me to not switch in this situation.

I get that this isn't a long switch -- not all goofy switches are long switches, IMO.

Plus 110%.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's not the distance. To me, there are switches that look/feel natural and those that look/feel forced.

...

I'm happy to do either, but it just makes sense to me to not switch in this situation.

I get that this isn't a long switch -- not all goofy switches are long switches, IMO.

The point of switches is that it ensures that both teams get relatively the same coverage from each official through out the game. In 3-man, live ball rotations usually make that happen any way, however. But, in 2-man, if you didn't switch, you'd be lead for the same team for possibly the entire quarter/half.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point of switches is that it ensures that both teams get relatively the same coverage from each official through out the game. In 3-man, live ball rotations usually make that happen any way, however. But, in 2-man, if you didn't switch, you'd be lead for the same team for possibly the entire quarter/half.

Let's say I buy what you're selling: Why don't we switch then on shooting fouls where the trail makes the call?

We switch often enough. No reason to do so on long switches and on switches where things feel forced. Leave it up to the crew to decide which switches make sense and which ones don't.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

Let's say I buy what you're selling: Why don't we switch then on shooting fouls where the trail makes the call?

We (in Oregon) do. Our state rejected the NFHS change on that mechanic. Word has is that the NFHS committee never voted on that particular change but it somehow made into the final list of changes.

Originally Posted by Rich

We switch often enough. No reason to do so on long switches and on switches where things feel forced. Leave it up to the crew to decide which switches make sense and which ones don't.

I don't disagree, but it is probably a lot easier to teach that we switch on all fouls rather than try to define all the possible things that could be a long switch.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Rich

Let's say I buy what you're selling: Why don't we switch then on shooting fouls where the trail makes the call?

We switch often enough. No reason to do so on long switches and on switches where things feel forced. Leave it up to the crew to decide which switches make sense and which ones don't.

Here we do switch if the trail makes the call and we stay in the half court. If it is a shooting foul we don't switch.

[mj]

I prefer to go by the book as it's one less thing to pre-game. There is one thing I don't do by the book and that is pass off a 5th foul to the non-calling official in 2-person and have them tell the coach, get the substitute and tell the player. That is an idiotic mechanic imo.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mj

There is one thing I don't do by the book and that is pass off a 5th foul to the non-calling official in 2-person and have them tell the coach, get the substitute and tell the player. That is an idiotic mechanic imo.

From my pregame conference outline:

If I call a fifth foul on a player, I’ll tell the coach, unless I think it’s going to be a problem.
If either of us warns a coach, or the bench, let’s let each other know about it. If one of us calls a technical foul
on a coach, the noncalling official will remind the coach that he must sit down.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point of switches is that it ensures that both teams get relatively the same coverage from each official through out the game.

That is the intention, certainly, but like most things, it doesn't always work.


Extreme example: You play 4 minutes without a whistle, then have a foul. 10 seconds later, another foul. Then 3:50 without a whistle. Around here, unless it is inconvenient not to do so, we don't switch on the second foul.