New NFHS Mechanics?
 

Was wondering if anyone has heard any rumors pertaining to NFHS mechanics changes. Apparently mechanics were a major point of discussion and editing at the rules committee meeting, though I won't get my manual until September.

Maybe two-handed reporting will be allowed now? :D

NFHS signals are a POE.

The only "change" is that the universal signal that everyone used indicating a thrower can run the endline is now official.

No, two handed reporting is not NFHS mechanic.

You misunderstood. Significant time was spent updating the officials' manual. This could mean that there are some changes that we won't know about until we get the manual in September.

Usually they announce those things. I have no idea what would be changed other than maybe some wording that someone will read way too much into.

Peace

Signal To Noise (Peter Gabriel, 2002) ...
 

It's been an official IAABO signal since 2009-10. But, like BktBallRef stated, it's been an unofficial signal, for many officials, not just for IAABO officials, for a lot longer than that. We were using it, here in my little corner of Connecticut, before there was such a thing as official IAABO signals; back when IAABO guys, and gals, were still using NFHS mechanics, and signals (without an official run the endline signal); also known as the good old days. Now we're all legitimate signalers, not NFHS bastard signalers.

I've been using it for 14 years.

No Statute Of Limitations ...
 

Maybe we can be cellmates in NFHS prison? I bet that I can sharpen the extra whistle in my pocket into a shiv. I wonder what the weather's like in Indianapolis?

You know, it may not be too late to delete your post, and the evidence?

Only 14? -- I remember HS refs using that signal back when I played in the early 80s

So do I, however I wasn't officiating those games, hence the statement "I've been using...."

I can't recall seeing anyone doing the "run the endline" signal as drawn up/illustrated.

We all use one, of course, but the one that's been approved is one I rarely see and one I know I won't start seeing.

Say Hello To My Little Friend ...
 

From the IAABO Mechanics Manual:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/372/19...60a8bacf_m.jpg

Advance Copy ...
 

Where have you seen the new NFHS "run the endline" signal "drawn up/illustrated"?

Isn't Massachusetts an IAABO state, with some NCAA adaptations?

Are you sure that you're not talking about an IAABO, or NCAA (definitely not my forte), signal illustration?

I haven't seen the new signal's definition yet but there has been an official NFHS run the endline signal for a long time. It isn't like we haven't had one. Are they just changing the nature of the signal?

See http://www.gccoa.us/basketball/docum...%20Signals.pdf Signal #23.

Or #18 in this version:

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/43734233.png

I have been using it for 50 years and I have only been officiating for 44 years.

MTD, Sr.

I'm Confused ???
 

Nice post. Thanks.

Then what's the change?

Officials Signal Chart and Officials Manual: Establish a signal to be used after a basket is made and there is a stoppage in play. The signal is used by the officials to indicate the team inbounding the ball may run the baseline. The signal will be executed by extending the arm laterally, bending the elbow at a 90-degree angle, moving the hand and forearm from the elbow in a waving motion horizontally along the end line. A new picture will need to be added to the signal chart.

Looks like they're revising the signal to be upwardly oriented AND specifying that it will be used at the time of the stoppage, not just at the time play is to resume.

Sounds exactly like what we've been doing....for as long as I can remember.

Yes. Even though the book has the lower signal, many here (including me) do it upwards and more visible and when the whistle blows to confirm with the crew how we will be resuming.

This.

See your own post above the one I'm quoting here.

"What's New" ???
 

... New York, New Jersey, New Mexico (I know, it's an old joke, but it's a classic, and it's still funny).

My illustration was an IAABO illustration (note the little patch), not a NFHS illustration, and (currently using IAABO mechanics, and signals, rather than NFHS mechanics, and signals) I had no idea that the NFHS already had a "run the endline" signal (based on the "new" 15-16 NFHS signal description).

There is no way to know what will be expected in 2015-16 until the manual comes out. When I went to a camp 2 years ago, one of the clinicians had inside knowledge of the new expected long switch in the NFHS book, but the book itself didn't get in my hands until fall. It was not discussed in the changes to rules/signals that came out earlier in the year. And then it changed again.

That said, I'd be surprised if the NFHS endorsed 2-handed reporting, but I'd switch to it day one if they did.

Our assigner of officials and the guy in charge has said we will be using two hand mechanics this year. So excited.:D

Did they say if this was a national change or just unique to your area? I'm praying for the former.

Me too. With a little practice it's ridiculously easy to master. Just set up your right hand with the tens digit as you move toward the table. If need be, score the basket with your other hand and then *poof* up go the fingers.

I have heard the real NFHS roadblock has been over concern that high school table personnel cannot process a two-hand signal, especially if the official is still walking toward the table while reporting. I think that's a weak position and pretty demeaning to table personnel. All of this, "stop, be rigid, put up one hand, stick your hand straight out" stuff makes me feel like a robot and slows down game flow. I've largely abandoned it and don't really care if some purist evaluator downgrades me for it.

If I can tell the table is inexperienced, sure I'll slow things down for them. But I shouldn't have to assume that they're dense and slow because usually quite the opposite is true.

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.

I do not see that happening unless states decide to go their own way for some time and do what they want. I think the NF is too intrenched their philosophy as they think that many official will not execute it properly. Heck right now it is hard to find many very low level officials execute the current system. It is not made for those of us that have extensive experience, it is also made for those of us that have hardly ever officiated anything too.

The only thing I could see realistically is the two handed reporting, but they will still require us to stop and report.

Peace

I would be ok with that as a compromise. It's a baby step in the right direction.

Sort of like the rules committee taking baby steps this year when....oh, wait, they didn't adopt a single one of their 40+ agenda proposals this year, did they? Sigh.

Mechanics are local. Your state can do whatever they really want to do when it comes to mechanics. That is another reason I do not see a change from the NF level unless local areas all over the country make the change themselves. Not so much in basketball, but we do many things different in football and in baseball (when I worked it) that the NF did not endorse.

Peace

The stopping is not so much for veteran officials and veteran table crews. It is for the rest that often need to slow down. I often evaluate officials who are in too much of a hurry to report and leave such that they're turning away before they're even done reporting. That leads to miscommunication and/or they look bad/sloppy. Buzz, buzzz...what was that number....or...hey that should be 1+1 or something.

Insisting they stop, report, then leave, gets them to slow down and not leave before they're really finished.

Smoke Signals ...
 

IAABO signals actually say not to stick your hand straight out, but rather, to signal the player number off to the side. This change was made a few years ago. If I recall correctly, the change was made because it was thought that holding up fingers in front of a vertically striped jersey could lead to mistakes by the table crew.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/511/19...8ebef98a_m.jpg

As one with experience on the other side of the scorer's table, I would agree with this concern. As a scorer, I've had officials flash the numbers so quickly in front of them, their fingers blend in with the stripes, making it difficult to see on occasion and prompting the question, "Who was the foul on again?"

As an official, I try to report using a hand off to the side--on the side of offending team's bench if possible--to help make it easier for the table crew.

In Texas we switched to two-hand mechanics AND we're allowed to walk and talk. So we have some good things going for us down here!

This is the first instance I can think of that makes our grey pinstripes more practical than black and whites.

Just for the other side of the coin -- when I have scored, I have found it easier to see the fingers in front of the stripes than when the signs were off to the side -- in the latter, the fingers would blend in with the crowd in the background.

Teaching Tool ...
 

Agree. Slowing down is a relative term, one official's impression of slow may be another official's impression of fast. By teaching stop, an absolute term, there's no ambiguity of what's expected. It's an easy starting point for teaching proper mechanics.

Relative:
Evaluator: Your reporting was too fast.
Rookie Official: Yes, but (famous rookie last words) I slowed down from the last evaluation.

Absolute:
Evaluator: You didn't stop.
Rookie Official: You're right I didn't.

It's a great teaching tool. Once one becomes a veteran official, one can adjust, and figure out what the appropriate speed is.

Last night, I saw the new NFHS signal chart posted here [PDF]. I didn't see a new signal for running the end line, but they did change signal #28. What used to be the pointing at the floor for a free throw or designated spot violation (in the 2014-15 rule book) is a now a new signal for "Move along end line on a throw in" violation(?).

Did the signal for running the end line get put in the wrong section? :confused:

28 is the new signal. Spot throw is 7

And 28 should be in the information section.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

I don't think they mentioned either way, just that we should use two hand mechanics. Sorry.

yes

Can someone please explain why IAABO has their own set of mechanics? I've never been able to wrap my head around it.

The NF does not control what any state or local association wants to do with their mechanics. It is really that simple. The NF is only over rules and have mechanics that areas may or may not follow.

Peace

That is certainly true, but the question of why they actually do it remains?

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)