New NFHS Mechanics?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Rich

I wouldn't be surprised to see our mechanics move in the direction of NCAAW / NBA. Personally I don't care, although the stop and report with one hand thing -- I'd gladly abandon that.

Frankly the NCAAM "stop" mechanic is really only necessary because they then have to turn around and go opposite. Which is a silly and time-wasting concept in and of itself just meant to avoid confrontations with coaches (and said avoidance only makes frustration fester, at which point you have to pull a Gene Steretore and entertain the coach every time you're the tableside C and the ball is live, etc., etc.....but I digress).

My point? Stopping to report is silly and useless.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Frankly the NCAAM "stop" mechanic is really only necessary because they then have to turn around and go opposite.

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.

Which is a silly and time-wasting concept in and of itself just meant to avoid confrontations with coaches

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.

My point? Stopping to report is silly and useless.

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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.

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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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.

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.

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

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

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.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

That is the problem "if" they are professional.

Peace