Three Seconds Not One's Best Call Of The Night ...

[Nevadaref]

I agree with you that the philosophy has changed from thirty years ago. The current instruction is to just officiate the game and to refrain from coaching the players. It is not our role in the game to provide instruction.

I too learned under the philosophy of talking players out of violations or fouls, but have transitioned to not doing that anymore.

Today, I simply pass on calling fouls or violations which are trivial or have no impact upon the conduct of the game. So I would just ignore the three-second violation, until it was blatant or created a clear advantage for the offensive player.

The current philosophy is that we should stick to calling the game and that the players and coaches will adjust to the calls. The old verbal instruction is passé. Now it is simply blow the whistle.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree with you that the philosophy has changed from thirty years ago. The current instruction is to just officiate the game and to refrain from coaching the players. It is not our role in the game to provide instruction.

I too learned under the philosophy of talking players out of violations or fouls, but have transitioned to not doing that anymore.

Today, I simply pass on calling fouls or violations which are trivial or have no impact upon the conduct of the game. So I would just ignore the three-second violation, until it was blatant or created a clear advantage for the offensive player.

The current philosophy is that we should stick to calling the game and that the players and coaches will adjust to the calls. The old verbal instruction is passé. Now it is simply blow the whistle.

YMMV. It is still frequently encouraged in my neck of the woods to talk players out of silly fouls and violations.

[BigT]

Question

If one team has a great post player and great outside shooters. And the post player stays in the key causing the defense to withdraw from guarding the 3 point line providing shot after shot. Isn't that an advantage? Remember a NFHS article stating that was causing an advantage even if it didn't go to the big guy.

I found it interesting and will probably not be considered an advantage by most here. I did find it interesting.

I do agree it should only be caused if it gives an advantage. Any thoughts?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BigT

Question

If one team has a great post player and great outside shooters. And the post player stays in the key causing the defense to withdraw from guarding the 3 point line providing shot after shot. Isn't that an advantage? Remember a NFHS article stating that was causing an advantage even if it didn't go to the big guy.

I found it interesting and will probably not be considered an advantage by most here. I did find it interesting.

I do agree it should only be caused if it gives an advantage. Any thoughts?

I guess it would be but rarely do many just sit in the lane. Heck in the game today who is using a big man as a big part of their offense? This is a drive and kick game, not a grind it out in the post game. So not much of an issue anymore. But that being said if they are taught properly, they are likely on the outskirts of the lane anyway. Part of calling this is where they are located too. I have not changed anything I have done in over 20 years from my original philosophy.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... in the game today who is using a big man as a big part of their offense? This is a drive and kick game, not a grind it out in the post game.

“Everybody pulls for David, nobody roots for Goliath.” (Wilt Chamberlain)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigT

...should only be caused if it gives an advantage.

... it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule.

My proudest moment on the Forum was when I finally convinced Jurassic Referee that advantage/disadvantage not only applied to fouls, but also to some violations. Forum members seldom won debates with the very knowledgeable Jurassic Referee.

When a team is gaining an advantage by having a player parked in the lane for more than three seconds, I sound the whistle and call the violation immediately, with no warning.

Another example of a no warning immediate whistle three second violation for me is when a player gets the ball in the lane after being there for a few seconds, makes a move to shoot, decides not to shoot, and passes to a teammate.

On the other hand, when a player just aimlessly wanders around and has one foot, or part of a foot, in the lane, maybe after setting, or attempting to set, a screen, at the low post, or at the elbow, I almost always give a warning. However once a coach yells at me to call the violation, I may not use the warning option, observe what going on, and possibly go straight to the whistle.