Well I cannot answer about that specific organization. I can only speak for what we do in my state. Now in basketball we pretty much do everything the NF does except for a couple of specific exceptions like bouncing the ball on the end line or even how we have long switched. I am not even sure what the NF does in many cases because we do not use or give out NF Mechanics books, ever to the officials.

In a sport like football we do so many things different than the NF, I could not even tell you what the differences are. All I know is our administrator got so frustrated with mistakes that took place in our State Finals and playoff, he made sure we did those things to cover the holes that often NF mechanics leave based on their diagrams and lack of concise information. And I know in baseball we had similar problems and my state basically at one time adopted NCAA philosophies on many mechanics. I will assume that IAABO is probably not happy with NF mechanics or lack of change so they feel they are more in tune to the changes and change when they get ready. Just look at these changes to mechanics. We change a single we have been doing already for years. And when they do a change, it is a change that does not matter like a long switch or when we should not long switch. Following the NF and their mechanics is just frustrating.

Peace

But at the HS level, and particularly at the sub-varsity level, you get scorers who aren't well-trained and might not be paying as close attention as you'd like. So it's important to get into the reporting area and stop to make sure that the scorer actually receives the information that you're trying to communicate.

I don't think this is true. You probably remember that the NCAAM mechanic used to be for the reporting official to stay tableside. When it changed back to going opposite, the rationale we were given was that officials were over-indulging the coaches in conversation, sometimes seeking out the coach to talk about the play. They wanted to cut down on conversation, or so we were told.

In college, I most agree (although at some Juco's and low-level D3's you're still better off stopping and being really obvious). But in HS, I disagree completely.

Endline. They're allowed to run the endline. This, by itself, is not that big a deal. But it's one more in a very long line of examples that show the rules-ignorance of the members of the Rules Committee. We get rules references with dots instead of dashes; we have case plays that blatantly contradict the rule cited; and we get terms that don't correspond to their actual definition. The baseline is on the backboard, not on the playing court. But nobody reads Rule 1, including the Rules Committee, apparently. :mad:

Now get off my lawn!

Holy crap, I've turned into Jurassic! :eek:

I was at a camp earlier this year and was complimented on my use of "end line" in conversation.

Maybe they had nothing else good to say.... [emoji3]

1. Partially agree. I should make sure the scorer actually receives the information that I'm trying to communicate, absolutely. But in most cases I can do that just as easily with a deliberate walk and good eye contact. To say that coming to a complete stop is necessary for said communication is not true. It's just a technique that the NFHS prescribes.

2. Valid point. But there's a difference between breaking into jail and being receptive to coaches who have respectful questions. If too many officials were breaking into jail, then that's a training issue that shouldn't have been covered up by changing the reporting mechanic. Honestly NCAAM is the only known mechanic set (IAABO, NFHS, NCAAW, FIBA and NBA being the others that I'm aware of) that requires the reporting official to go opposite. I think that does more harm then good. Check your ego at the door, stay tableside, and know how to professionally work with coaches....IMO.

3. Then we shall agree to disagree. :) It's case-by-case for me; I can tell in five minutes if a table is professional or not. If they're not, I adjust and communicate more slowly, by whatever means least interrupts game flow.

I agree 100%. I just wanted to point out the stated reason for the change. I agree with you that staying tableside in college is better 98% of the time.

IAABO also requires the reporting official to go opposite the table for both 2-whistle and 3-whistle crews.

If you do it right and you know what you are doing and communicating. But we have people who hardly do anything right close to the table and now you want to give the license to be further away and be just as lazy? I am sorry, but I have no problem with the standards of the NF here or any state for that matter. Someone more experienced might know how to make eye contact and be assured they are passing the information. But I also see a lot of table people that also assume they have the information and never look up at you when you are reporting and you have to wait for them to even acknowledge that you are reporting a foul.

Not sure what ego has to do with this. NCAA Men's have bigger egos as coaches than most as they are the "stars" of their game unlike the other levels you mentioned. And coaches at that level will talk to you even when it is not necessary. I loved the change as it really did not and does not help the game being next to a coach. It is usually a waste of time.

That is the problem "if" they are professional. ;)

Peace

Learn something new every day.

If you would have told me this morning that I'd conclude the day with yet another reason to dislike IAABO, I would have....

....aww heck, who am I kidding; I would have believed you regardless.

Distinction without a difference. In a completely different league than "reach" or "over-the-back" or "set".

I agree with your second sentence. However, that wasn't my point. My point is about the Rules Committee members; and I still think it's a valid one. This is another example that shows the Committee members don't know their own rules.

I disagree. Using very commonly used and still accurate synonyms, to me, isn't such a sign.

You Like Tomato And I Like Tomahto ...
 

I don't have a problem with Committee members using the term baseline. Like Camron Rust stated, baseline is a commonly used synonym, and when the Committee members discuss rules, and use the term baseline, I'm sure that they all know exactly what they are talking about, with absolutely no confusion.

I do have a problem with the Editor allowing the term baseline to be used, instead of endline, in any of the Committee's work final draft. Editors are supposed to edit such minor issues, and while baseline definitely is a commonly used synonym for endline, is isn't fully accurate. Definitions are very important in rule making. i.e., Rule 4, and, while there is only a minor difference, in basketball it's called the endline (we have two of them on the court), it's not called the baseline.

It's certainly not a big deal like calling goaltending the same thing as basket interference, but those that are basketball rule "gurus", like basketball officials, and most certainly, the basketball rules Editor, should differentiate minor vocabulary differences such as endline, and baseline.

Extra Credit: When is goaltending the same exact thing as basket interference?

When the ball is touched on its downward flight and in the cylinder.

Give The Man A Cigar ...
 

Pick a prize from the top shelf.

i agree, "baseline" has been around forever. and is still in use today. i dont know how it started but it is clearly understood....to say using that term means the rules committee is off/misguided etc isnt correct. (they may be on other things but that isnt one of them)