Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BillyMac
I found that officials working youth basketball while exercising the Tower Philosophy gave a great deal of latitude to players at that level, while those at progressively higher levels gave less leeway. My concern was that this implementation should have been reversed. Should not younger players first have an understanding of what actions are within the limits of the rules? Is not a travel a travel? In today’s basketball, however, young officials begin early to make their own determination as to what is within the “spirit and intent” of the rules.
SOUND RULES FOUNDATION
The more I observe the training of applicants who want to become officials, the more convinced I become that the concept of advantage-disadvantage should remain a “foreign language” until a sound rules foundation has been realized and processed by the official. Officials should be absolutely certain and well versed on the description and explanation of each foul and violation. A strictly literal approach should be taken.
|
Had this discussion with an official yesterday. Towards the end of this year my son and I [both completing our 3rd year] have made a point of working games we are assigned together with a more literal application of the rules at the lower levels. As new officials we are assured during training that if lower level games are called too strictly "you will be there all night long" - however, we have found that the key to calling those games more strictly and still finishing on time is the level of hustle of the officials and, consequently, the level of hustle we can instill in the players. The more we run, the more they run and calling the fouls/violations does not prolong the game!
I believe that through working these lower level games with a stricter interpretation of the rules, it will only help the players compete at a higher level in their high school years. When I see the JV and Varsity games in which the footwork is poor, but not called consistently, it leaves room for an argument that says the result of loosely calling the lower level games (so we can "get out on time") is a set of players experienced in lax application of the rules and a set of officials with poorly defined "rules reflex" - i.e. too used to not calling poor footwork, for instance. Calling the lower level games more strictly also helps us, as inexperienced officials, develop our own convictions and style... one point in all this verbage being that if you are an experienced official - don't dissuade a less experienced official from calling a "cleaner" game because you feel it slows things down, just hustle a bit more!