NFHS June 6, 2013 Release ...

[just another ref]

How does a tip signal help the offense? As stated above, if the ball is loose in the backcourt, the offense will try to go and get it whether it is a violation or not. The main value I see is to keep some partners I could name from calling a violation right in front of me from 60 feet away. It might also keep the 3 knowledgeable fans in the house from yelling for a violation. The other 300 will yell for it anyway.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Why should that matter to the offense? They still need to be the first to recover the ball to prevent an easy score by the opponent regardless of whether the ball was tipped or not.

Originally Posted by just another ref

How does a tip signal help the offense? As stated above, if the ball is loose in the backcourt, the offense will try to go and get it whether it is a violation or not. The main value I see is to keep some partners I could name from calling a violation right in front of me from 60 feet away. It might also keep the 3 knowledgeable fans in the house from yelling for a violation. The other 300 will yell for it anyway.

The offense can choose to get it immediately or to get into a position to either defend if the can or perhaps let the opponent touch it first then try to get it.

I think the signal should NOT be immediate but only upon someone touching it if it wasn't obvious. Any moment before that and we're influencing the actual play.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The offense can choose to get it immediately or to get into a position to either defend if they can......

Getting it immediately gives the offense the opportunity to get all players back to defend. I've never seen a player ignore a chance to touch the ball to hurry back to a defensive position instead.

.......or perhaps let the opponent touch it first then try to get it.

Not gonna say it never happens, but this is a really bad idea.

I think the signal should NOT be immediate but only upon someone touching it if it wasn't obvious.

In my experience this is the way the signal is used, and probably will continue to be.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Getting it immediately gives the offense the opportunity to get all players back to defend. I've never seen a player ignore a chance to touch the ball to hurry back to a defensive position instead.

I have. I've seen players hover over the ball as it rolled towards the backcourt endline. Only when a defender approached did they grab it. They thought they had touched it last and expected a violation but I'm guessing they wanted to let the clock run just a bit longer. If I were to indicate tip, that would be a signal to them that it was safe to pick up the ball. Is that really fair? Shouldn't they have to play based on what they see and hear instead of looking to us for information?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I've seen players hover over the ball as it rolled towards the backcourt endline.

Me too, in little kid's games. They know that it's wrong to touch the ball first, so they hover, waiting for an opportunity to scoop up the ball after it's been touched by an opponent. I've seen this dozens of times, as a young player, a middle school coach, and an official, and I've never, ever, seen it work.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've never, ever, seen it work.

Me neither.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...and I've never, ever, seen it work.

Originally Posted by grunewar

Me neither.

I've seen it in HS varsity. And to the point of letting the clock run, I've seen it work. Why not get 3-4 more seconds off the clock with a 4 point lead with 30 seconds to go. But if they knew they could pick it up, they would. I don't like that advantage.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Shouldn't they have to play based on what they see and hear instead of looking to us for information?

Bingo.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The offense can choose to get it immediately or to get into a position to either defend if they can or perhaps let the opponent touch it first then try to get it.

I think the signal should NOT be immediate but only upon someone touching it if it wasn't obvious. Any moment before that and we're influencing the actual play.

Most likely the O-player will make that decision based on who he thinks has the best possibility to get to the ball and not on our signal/no signal (which he may not even notice anyway.) I'm not totally opposed to the mechanic, I just think the rationale is weak and, that it might encourage some officials to expand its use to other situations (such as blocked shots) which we have always discouraged.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Most likely the O-player will make that decision based on who he thinks has the best possibility to get to the ball and not on our signal/no signal (which he may not even notice anyway.) I'm not totally opposed to the mechanic, I just think the rationale is weak and, that it might encourage some officials to expand its use to other situations (such as blocked shots) which we have always discouraged.

It may be more likely that others in the gym are more likely to see the signal (partners, coaches, fans, and other players) than the one ot two players going after the ball.......

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by grunewar

It may be more likely that others in the gym are more likely to see the signal (partners, coaches, fans, and other players) than the one or two players going after the ball.......

"This signal increases the official's ability to communicate with the players, coaches and fans on critical plays." (period)

Right. What you said and the NFHS statement above is sufficient. To me, the rest of the verbiage is what I felt to be weak.