PC signal sequence

[mtn335]

I think what they want you to do is to just put the fist out, like for a delayed dead ball on a FT - extend the arm.

I also think that's some weak-looking stupid shit.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rich

My goodness, I'm so thankful I can make the call without worrying about signal sequence and all that nonsense.

I assign and I couldn't possibly care about this stuff. You can get every signal right and if you get the call wrong you will always be rated below the guy that punches and gets it right. At least with me.

Either/or = bad.
Both/and = nice.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

I assign and I couldn't possibly care about this stuff. You can get every signal right and if you get the call wrong you will always be rated below the guy that punches and gets it right. At least with me.

I agree with you that getting the calls right is the most important aspect of officiating basketball, not only to an assigner, but to everybody; athletic directors, coaches, players, parents, fans, partners, etc., but there are other things to consider, they're minor, but they still should be considered.

How about two officials, both equally get more correct calls than any other official that you assign, both are equal in all other aspects of officiating (game management, appearance, physical condition, availability, reliability, etc.), one executes all signals correctly (IAABO, NFHS, etc.), the other is a loose cannon signaler. Who gets the nod?

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with you that getting the calls right is the most important aspect of officiating basketball, not only to an assigner, but to everybody; athletic directors, coaches, players, parents, fans, partners, etc., but there are other things to consider, they're minor, but they still should be considered.

How about two officials, both equally get more correct calls than any other official that you assign, both are equal in all other aspects of officiating (game management, appearance, physical condition, availability, reliability, etc.), one executes all signals correctly (IAABO, NFHS, etc.), the other is a loose cannon signaler. Who gets the nod?

From my experience, especially at the high school level, if you're an excellent play caller, game manager, have a good athletic appearance, keep availability up to date, and are reliable, you will get games. PERIOD. If you're getting these things right you probably have good mechanics, too. They might not necessarily meet the strict definition of nfhs or iaabo but as long as they don't look silly, you'll be fine

I worked in a group that "required" the bird dog for all fouls. My focus was college so I didn't do this and most of my mechanics were more ncaa in nature. Nobody said a word to me because I was getting the other things right. You're never going to have a situation (especially at the high school level) where everything else is equal.

If you're goal is to work nfhs playoffs, use nfhs mechanics. But know your goals, and the expectations of the people that will help you achieve your goals. The rest will fill in if you're getting everything else right.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with you that getting the calls right is the most important aspect of officiating basketball, not only to an assigner, but to everybody; athletic directors, coaches, players, parents, fans, partners, etc., but there are other things to consider, they're minor, but they still should be considered.

How about two officials, both equally get more correct calls than any other official that you assign, both are equal in all other aspects of officiating (game management, appearance, physical condition, availability, reliability, etc.), one executes all signals correctly (IAABO, NFHS, etc.), the other is a loose cannon signaler. Who gets the nod?

I wouldn't necessarily equate "loose cannon signaler" with one who doesn't use strictly NFHS mechanics. The real question is, how crisp are those signals and how well do they communicate?

If, as in your scenario, one guy uses Thor's Hammer and the other uses a good punch, I think Rich gives the nod to the puncher, provided said punch communicates and sells the call well.

There is, of course, a common sense limit. Joey Crawford communicates quite well, too, but I'm not sure that's the song and dance a HS assignor wants on his court. A little space for personal style = good. A wholesale personal repertoire = bad.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I wouldn't necessarily equate "loose cannon signaler" with one who doesn't use strictly NFHS mechanics. The real question is, how crisp are those signals and how well do they communicate?

If, as in your scenario, one guy uses Thor's Hammer and the other uses a good punch, I think Rich gives the nod to the puncher, provided said punch communicates and sells the call well.

There is, of course, a common sense limit. Joey Crawford communicates quite well, too, but I'm not sure that's the song and dance a HS assignor wants on his court. A little space for personal style = good. A wholesale personal repertoire = bad.

I agree with this. And it's hard to explain where the line gets drawn. Someone once explained it to me like this: If you look good giving a non-textbook mechanic, you'll probably be okay. But how do you know if you look good? The answer: nobody tells you to change.

I suggest starting out textbook. Once you've mastered the basics and understand the reason behind the mechanics, you can develop a slight personal flair when appropriate.

[Freddy]

True or False:
Most assigners could care less about officials' signaling. All they care about is whether or not they will get a complaining AD's phone call after the game. Period.

[Rich]

Sounds more like it's dictated by anal retentiveness than anything else. Shrug.