PC signal sequence

[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.

[Eastshire]

Interestingly, Ohio has absolutely forbidden the punch, even for team control fouls. Team control fouls are reported with the player control signal. The given reason is coaches and fans won't understand what the punch means.

It's not that often a state association calls their coaches dumb.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'll only speak for myself.

When a coach or AD (or official, for that matter) complains, I ask for video. I'll judge for myself.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=Freddy;961916]True or False:
Most assigners could care less about officials' signaling. /QUOTE]

False.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Freddy

True or False:
Most assigners could care less about officials' signaling.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

False.

Yeah, I noticed that too, but chose to leave it alone.

[TriggerMN]

FWIW, Minnesota wants its officials to use the exact same mechanic for both player control and team control fouls. Fist up, punch the other way with the same fist. Never behind the head anymore.

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Interestingly, Ohio has absolutely forbidden the punch, even for team control fouls. Team control fouls are reported with the player control signal. The given reason is coaches and fans won't understand what the punch means.

It's not that often a state association calls their coaches dumb.

I honestly can't imagine that a coach wouldn't understand that a punch in the opposite direction means a foul on the offense. I also would imagine that the average fan would be able to interpret this, but I honestly could care less if fans understand what our signals mean.

Originally Posted by Rich

I'll only speak for myself.

When a coach or AD (or official, for that matter) complains, I ask for video. I'll judge for myself.

Yep. Would never be willing to work for an assigner who scolds his/her officials because of a bitchy coach or AD without seeing any video. If the AD/coach really thinks a mistake was made, get the video.

[Kansas Ref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Fist in the air with a (single) simultaneous blast of the whistle; hand behind the head, then point in the direction the ball will be put in play towards with the same hand to indicate there are no shots, but a throw in. When the whistle is out of your mouth say, "white, 25" and what he did. I usually just say, "charge." At the table, its, "white, 2-5, player control, blue ball, out of bounds" and point to the spot of the throw in.

*I follow the procedure described by this post (above)--no need for me to conjure up a modified mechanic. Only exception is that I will say
"white, twenty-five". Instead of saying "white, 2 - 5". However, the score table will always verbally verify that I am saying 'player number 25 instead of "player number 2 and/or player number 5". So, this is a minute detail dictated more by training than tenet.

[Rich]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bballref3966

... I honestly could care less if fans understand what our signals mean.

But isn't that one of the purposes of signals, to communicate the "call" to partners, table personnel, coaches, players, and fans?

It is, according to the NFHS:

"Signaling is an essential aspect of officiating and, through its use, decisions and information are relayed to players, coaches, and spectators."

[Freddy]

Who is most influential in holding officials accountable to using approved signals?
A) NFHS
B) The state
C) Camp clinicians
D) Local association trainer(s)
E) Assigner(s)
F) Individual officials who care
G) Does it really frickin' matter?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Who is most influential in holding officials accountable to using approved signals?

In my little corner of Connecticut: Peer evaluators, whose ratings determine an official's ranking in the organization, a ranking that influences the number, and level, of games that that official is assigned.