Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
The second part of his response did surprise me. He stated that he had attended several national interpretation meetings during the off season and that the NFHS was very concerned that many officials and many official organizations had taken these principles too far. The pendulum had swung too far to one side. Many officials and many official organizations had used the principle of Advantage Disadvantage to make up their own rule interpretations, in direct contrast to what the NFHS had intended in terms of how the game of basketball is to be properly played and officiated. Officials were acting like diners in a restaurant, selecting items (rules) that they liked from the menu, and not selecting items (rules) that they didn't like. According to Peter, the NFHS would like to see a more literal interpretation of the Rule Book, and would like to have these rules applied to actual game situations in that literal manner. It appears that Jurassic Referee and other members of this Forum are way ahead of their time. Officials like myself, and official's organizations, like my local Board, are going to have to move the pendulum back the other way.
Jurassic says:
Just for the record, Billy, I personally don't think that you can take any kind of simplistic view and apply it wholely to game situations. There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion(read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter. My point all along was that you just couldn't try to apply advantage/disadvantage indiscriminately to violations.
Most violations must be called.
Zak says:
This is a quote from the old thread you linked. With respect to the part that I have bolded, and with no trolling intentions, how do you decide which violations you would not call?