Two-Person "Ball Side Mechanic" ? ? ?

Camron Rust

Adam wrote
The odds of this mechanic helping get a better view of post play significantly outweigh the chance of getting burned on your sideline. Marking a three is way less likely than making a decision on contact in the post. I don't cross until the ball is in the post, that minimizes the potential for regret.

Agree.

If the ball is out on the opposite side perimeter and there is a post up situation on the far side, the trail isn't going to be able to cover both and it is much more likely the ball is coming into that post than being skip passed to the other sideline such that there would need to be immediate coverage....and if there is a play the ball will take a while to get there and the trail can pick up a lot of them (if they're across the top).

JugglingReferee

Freddy wrote
Reviewing some resources for newbies today and came across the NFHS two-person ball side mechanic where the lead transitions across the lane to trail's side when all the action is over there.
I've always avoided doing this for what I consider to be a couple of good reasons.

My question to you who regularly do two-person:
Are there any of you who utilize this mechanic on a regular basis?

My question to you if you, like me, avoid this mechanic:
Why do you avoid it?

I use it almost every game.

If a TI is from the T's FC sideline, and usually deep (3pt and below), then I start in this position.

If the T side has many players and/or the next pass is to the post and the T wouldn't have a good look at it, then I'm over.

I'm lucky in that I still have wheels, so getting back over to cover my sideline is not an issue.

Freddy

Over the past eight years here, the one (the only) official I've seen use this mechanic, a guy from a nearby neighboring state assigned to a JV game in our area, would come across, then double up the observation on the competitive matchup outside near the sideline, a matchup the trail had anyway, viturally turning his back on the post matchups behind him. I wasn't impressed.

Properly, speaking, with the ball out on trail's wing and a competitive matchup deep in trail's post, when lead comes across, how far does he go? And does he turn his shoulders square to that post matchup like a three-man lead in a similar situation?

I'm starting to see the attractiveness of this. Like.

billyu2

Freddy wrote
Over the past eight years here, the one (the only) official I've seen use this mechanic, a guy from a nearby neighboring state assigned to a JV game in our area, would come across, then double up the observation on the competitive matchup outside near the sideline, a matchup the trail had anyway, viturally turning his back on the post matchups behind him. I wasn't impressed.

Properly, speaking, with the ball out on trail's wing and a competitive matchup deep in trail's post, when lead comes across, how far does he go? And does he turn his shoulders square to that post matchup like a three-man lead in a similar situation?

I'm starting to see the attractiveness of this. Like.

Wow! No wonder you didn't like the mechanic. Yes, the lead comes across the lane area extended similar to 3 person just far enough to get a good post play angle. We have been taught to keep shoulders square to the endline. Also, if the lead rotates back due to ball reversal, don't be too quick to "turn out the lights" on the room you are leaving.

Adam

I turn my shoulders, normally about 45 degrees, towards my sideline, when I cross. It reminds me that I need to go back. Also, I'm only there for the post, so turning my shoulders towards the post tells the trail that I am not looking at that outside matchup.

Jay R

Watch old video of NBA games when they did 2 person. The lead was constantly ball side in the post.

SmokeEater

JugglingReferee wrote
I use it almost every game.

If a TI is from the T's FC sideline, and usually deep (3pt and below), then I start in this position.

If the T side has many players and/or the next pass is to the post and the T wouldn't have a good look at it, then I'm over.

I'm lucky in that I still have wheels, so getting back over to cover my sideline is not an issue.

I concur with this method.

billyu2

Adam wrote
I turn my shoulders, normally about 45 degrees, towards my sideline, when I cross. It reminds me that I need to go back. Also, I'm only there for the post, so turning my shoulders towards the post tells the trail that I am not looking at that outside matchup.

One of the main reasons we are taught to keep shoulders square to the endline is to help widen our angle of vision to include a potential drive toward the endline (between 3pt. line and lane line) from the wing. The dribbler/defender are now moving away from the trail and into the lead's PCA. The lead must be able to pick this up without having to look over his outside shoulder. This would apply to 2 or 3 person.

Ref_in_Alberta

I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather be out of position on a OOB play because I was refereeing two post players take may (or may not) kicking the living ahem *stuff* out of each other.

One of my favorite observers always said "Players can hurt us, the ball doesn't."

And BTW FIBA 2 person does want you to cross the floor as L and referee plays as the same side of the T when the play dictates.

It was said by a previous poster - 2 person mechanics and positioning is about compromise.

Freddy

Due to the widespread and popular use of this mechanic outside our area, and given the solid reasoning and detailed explanations of those who responded, we will begin implementation of the Two-Person Ball Side Mechanic beginning at a rookies pre-season meeting tonight.
It just makes good sense.

I should get out more often.

Varsity is all three-person here. The newer officials doing sub-level ought to catch on readily. The veterans who do two-person--that might be a slightly harder sell, but will try. Those who've done three-person before shouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Thank you for your superb responses.

BillyMac

Freddy wrote
We will begin implementation of the Two-Person Ball Side Mechanic beginning at a rookies pre-season meeting tonight.

Be careful. We're a predominantly two person state, and we've been using the ball side mechanic for as long as I can remember, but we don't introduce it to rookies (cadets). We don't introduce it until they have completed their first year, and only then do we introduce them to this concept. And we tell rookies (cadets) that they may see it if they observe a varsity game, but not to use it, and to concentrate on the more basic procedures in the two person game.

Freddy

BillyMac wrote
Be careful. We're a predominantly two person state, and we've been using the ball side mechanic for as long as I can remember, but we don't introduce it to rookies (cadets). We don't introduce it to them until they have completed their first year, and only then introduce them to this concept. And we tell rookies (cadets) that they may see it if they observe a varsity game, but not to use it, and to concentrate on the more basic procedures in the two person game.

I will heed your warning and be full of care. Personnel tonight are not rookies but newer officials, each of whom has been well trained in 3-man already. I'll be judicious when it comes to the newbies later on in the month.

Welpe

BillyMac wrote
Be careful. We're a predominantly two person state, and we've been using the ball side mechanic for as long as I can remember, but we don't introduce it to rookies (cadets). We don't introduce it to them until they have completed their first year, and only then introduce them to this concept. And we tell rookies (cadets) that they may see it if they observe a varsity game, but not to use it, and to concentrate on the more basic procedures in the two person game.

On the other side of the coin, they taught it to the rookies here and I started using it in my first games. I think both approaches have merit.

BigT

rsl wrote
Here in Utah we have a mason-dixon line. South of Provo, the southern utah associations swear by it. In the north, it is almost forbidden. One year I went to two clinics and got dinged on evaluations in the north for going ball side and in the south for NOT going ball side.

The biggest liability for going ball side is that a quick swing pass catches you out of position and it is impossible to cover the far line or mark a three in the corner. But, I will still cross over if I have two physical big men pushing on each other on the ball side.

Isn't Utah going to allow this practice because of the changes this year by the NFHS?

Adam

billyu2 wrote
One of the main reasons we are taught to keep shoulders square to the endline is to help widen our angle of vision to include a potential drive toward the endline (between 3pt. line and lane line) from the wing. The dribbler/defender are now moving away from the trail and into the lead's PCA. The lead must be able to pick this up without having to look over his outside shoulder. This would apply to 2 or 3 person.

Interesting, but my thought is that I'm not going over there to officiate the wing. I'm over there to officiate the post players. The players on the wing are still the trail's players, and if they drive to the post, he'll get the drive. If, however, there is a secondary defender involved, I'll have that since he's already in the post.

Adam

Freddy,
I'm curious about something. You'd noted that you felt you had good reasons for avoiding the mechanic. Would you care to share those reasons for the betterment of the group?

Freddy

Adam wrote
Freddy,
I'm curious about something. You'd noted that you felt you had good reasons for avoiding the mechanic. Would you care to share those reasons for the betterment of the group?

1) None of the four or five camps popular in our state even mentioned it in their two-man sessions, that I can discern from those who were in them
2) Nobody I've seen in our area does it
3) Only example of it I've seen here was a guy from a nearby neighboring state who was doing it but was crossing over to observe the match-up out on the wing which his trail had anyway, completely ignoring what was going on behind him in the post as he fixated on action that wasn't his
4) Leeriness over the perceived inability to cover original sideline in case of a skip pass that got away, for instance

But I Have Seen the Light! (Kinda like Joliet Jake in the James Brown church scene). I've been won over by the well-founded defense of the mechanic by highly esteemed posters above. I see how it particularly solves the similar problem I have when our three-man lead, having not yet rotated, reaches over in C's paint and gets a foul call wrong many times due to his being straight-lined. For the two-man crew, the lead, prompt to transition across to view the slot between those two players at the low post from the T's side, has an easier call or no-call to make than a stepped-down or stepped-in trail, methinks. I'm not worried about my above concerns anymore.

Camron Rust

Welpe wrote
On the other side of the coin, they taught it to the rookies here and I started using it in my first games. I think both approaches have merit.

I think it should be taught to rookies. It is much harder to get them to change to doing it later then it is to do it right from the start.

Freddy

Camron Rust wrote
I think it should be taught to rookies. It is much harder to get them to change to doing it later then it is to do it right from the start.

If the prime reason for proper court positioning is . . .
to be in the right place
at the right time
in order to see the right thing
to make the right call (which might be a no-call)
(which is an expression I find myself using more and more lately),
then this ball side mechanic is purely natural.

I introduced it tonight to a group of three newer officials (who are well schooled in three-man mechanics) with whom I'll be working two-man sub-level games this year and their first comment was, "Hey, that's just like why the lead in three-man needs to rotate."
I appreciated their impulsive remark.
They won't have any trouble adopting the ball-side mechanic for two-man.

Thanx again to all for the responses.

Camron Rust

Freddy wrote
If the prime reason for proper court positioning is . . .
to be in the right place
at the right time
in order to see the right thing
to make the right call (which might be a no-call)
(which is an expression I find myself using more and more lately),
then this ball side mechanic is purely natural.

I introduced it tonight to a group of three newer officials (who are well schooled in three-man mechanics) with whom I'll be working two-man sub-level games this year and their first comment was, "Hey, that's just like why the lead in three-man needs to rotate."
I appreciated their impulsive remark.
They won't have any trouble adopting the ball-side mechanic for two-man.

Thanx again to all for the responses.

The biggest difference is realizing they have to go back before there is post play back on their original side (they go back when there is no longer post play on the trail's side), when the ball transitions to the other end, or when a pass is made towards their sideline.

« Previous Page Next Page »