I disagree...as does the mechanics manual defitition. Strong side is not defined by the ball. It is defined only by the location of the L....

Often, they are one and the same, but the L, in some case is not ball-side and they are still on the Strong Side.

When it is clear to the Lead that the Center will be overloaded.

Officials can generally handle two match-ups, but three is too much. Just like the T doesn’t need help from the C in the backcourt when it is 2 on 2, but does once five players (or it is 3 on 3) are actively participating in the action in the backcourt. This is guideline that I use to tell me when a partner needs coverage help.

So a ball-handler with an on-ball defender would be one match-up (and the primary one), add two opposing players jockeying for position in the high or low post on the C’s side (or running a pick and roll) and that official has the maximum that he can handle. If another player now comes over to screen, set up for a shot, or to receive a pass on the wing, the Lead should be rotating.

I also agree with Camron. Go with the player or competitive match-up that indicates to you that the C’s side is now where the action is. Don’t wait. See that play develop and get into position to officiate it. Don’t leave your C overwhelmed and trying to cover everything going on over there by himself!

Correct, this is where the manual is wrong. The writers, and only the writers, defined it by an official, whereas everyone else (unless your an official reading the manual) defines it by where the ball is. Fans, coaches, players, and officials all describe play and activity based on where the ball is, not an official.

During practice....

Coach: Billy, go to the strong side so we can get Tom an isolation play.
Billy: Where would the lead official be? That's what determine strong side coach.
Coach: You are off the team. Get out.

There could be 10 players on one side and L on the other. Per you, and the manual, the strong side would contain no players. No one would claim the side with the L official is strong side. That would be illogical.

Often? That is my point. They should always be the same. Stick to that and there are far fewer problems than using the manual definition.;)

Of all the replies thus far, this is the best I've seen.
Open for other perspectives.

Players/coaches/fans, sure, they can use it however they want. But, we're not talking players/coaches/fans. We're talking officiating. Officials don't describe it the same way (or at least shouldn't) because we're talking about entirely different things. In the officiating context, it is talking about the strength of the officiating alignment....2 officials makes it strong (in 3-person), the L (in 2-person) makes it strong. That is because the presence of the L gives much stronger coverage than if the L is on the other side.

Officiating terminology often differs from fan/coach/player-speak. This is just another example....we don't call reaches, we don't call walking, we don't say a player was set, etc.

The *TEAM's* strong side is where most of the players are. That's why coaches and players use it as yuou describe.

The *OFFICIAL's* strong side is where most of the officials are. That's why we should use the term that way.

It's perfectly consistent.

Officialese ...
 

From my two cents:

Good point Bob. Consistent? Yes, but not in the most efficient way. To be even more efficient and more consistent, strong side should be defined the same way for everyone. Too bad the manual editors did not write what they meant.

Ironically, in discussions involving the court, I have never heard an official use the term strong side to discuss where the L was. Rather, they were using it to describe where the ball was. Invariably, the point being made in the discussion was that the L should be on the strong side, where the ball was.

I get why the question was asked and why someone might want to know. But when it is all said and done, does it matter if what we say it is differs from what teams or coaches use? We are not them and what we call or refer to our language of the rules or mechanics, is really not the concern of coaches or fans for that matter. These are terms or jargon for us to teach the system. I really do not care what others say and it is not a thing where many people even realize our logic for why we use certain terms. Do you think anyone's life is changed because we use "end line" over "base line?" Nope. No one cares but officials and many times officials do not care in the right circles.

Peace

Kipling Said It Best ...
 

"We've gotta match their strong side with our strong side. When the on-ball matchup and enough action is over there that Center is overloaded, Lead's rotation should already have been underway."

Maybe?
Close?
Got Better?

We have been going on for two pages now and I do not wish to sound like a curmudgeonly old coot, BUT read what I highlighted above in RED! And then go to the 2017-19 NFHS Basketball Officials Manual, 2.35 STRONG SIDE, on Page 19. I do not have access to my Men's and Women's CCA Manuals but I will bet dollars to donuts that the definition of Strong Side is exactly the same.

Strong Side has only one definition and it is the Side of the Court on which the Lead is. It has absolutely nothing to do with Ball Location, the T's Location, or match-ups!

MTD, Sr.

Camron:

I missed your post with the CCA Manual Definition. Thank you.

MTD, Sr.

I do not dispute your objective evidence and points. I am simply saying that it (the manual definition) is very inefficient, inconsistent, and not what the writers meant.

Doing an internet search for "basketball strong side" will reveal hundreds of thousands of results and I could not find one (not that I looked at them all) that mentioned it was the side of the L official. They (most of the initial relevant results were involving definitions) all included it to mean the side of the ball. If anything the writers should correct it but no one cares enough to put up a fuss over consistency/efficiency any more.

The writers meant exactly what is there. It has always been that way. The fact that you found thousands of references to another meaning in a different context is irrelevant. Again, we're talking officiating terminology, not player/coach terminology. They're meant to describe two different things for two groups of people.

I also fail to see how it is in any way inefficient or inconsistent.

You're arguing that they should change a definition to match your misunderstanding. Are you going to argue that they should put over-the-back in the book next because many players and coaches use that term?