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

I've watched several IAABO International and local IAABO board Zoom "webinars" that have suggested that officials should never talk/warn/encourage/coach players to avoid three second violations during live ball situations at all levels of play.

For me, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I learned as a rookie official forty years ago.

Comments and thoughts from IAABO and non-IAABO Forum members?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.i...=0&w=163&h=144

Just tonight I yelled “Get out!” at a player who was close. He got the message.

You have to let three-second violations find you. If you go looking for them, you’re bound to miss a lot of other far more important stuff.

That matches my current association’s expectation. A few years back, one of our junior leagues implored us to call more three-second violations, probably because all of the parents remember every third whistle being a three-second violation 30+ years ago when they played. As if the improvement in game flow since the late 1980s is some kind of mortal wound to their basketball souls!

Anyway, we gave ‘em what they asked for....and they were sorry. [emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just say "Lane, lane, lane" and they get out. Just like I tell them other things that stop or avoid fouls or violations. Unless someone bigger tells us to do differently, then I am going to keep doing that. This sounds like high school purest saying this mess.

This is what I am talking about Billy. ;)

Peace

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.

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

Advantage/Disadvantage ...
 

... 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.

The Good Old Days ...
 

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k...=0&w=265&h=178

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

Be Careful What You Ask For (1 Samuel 8) ...
 

I never yell "Get Out" because after all they are allowed to be there

Allowed ???
 

Not if he's an offensive player, and the ball is in his team's control in his team's frontcourt, and he has been in the lane for more than three seconds, and he and is team are gaining an advantage not intended by rule, unless he is dribbling in or moving immediately to try for goal.

I don't yell anything. Only time I raise my voice so that everybody can hear it is when players are trying to stir up trouble.

If a player is in the paint too long and it has no effect on the play I will quietly say something to them one-on-one at the earliest opportunity. But a warning isn't a something that should be expected before a 3 second call can be made.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Aimlessly And Clueless ...
 

Agree. Well worded.

But if a player is just aimlessly and cluelessly wandering around in the lane for three seconds, not gaining any advantage, I might give a warning to player (and hit him with a violation if he doesn't comply) to preempt a coach from "interacting" with me.

You write that the player is cluelessly wandering around and not gaining any advantage, so why would you warn or call this? I wouldn’t.

Clueless ...
 

Good point.

Advantage/disadvantage can be subjective and is not very clear in the minds of many coaches, specifically regarding three seconds. I usually won't warn a clueless and aimless player until four-plus seconds and if he doesn't heed my warning he's probably in there six-plus seconds, accounting for some possible lag time it took me to become aware of his position inside the lane, and the time it took me to mentally process all the possibilities, and then decide to sound my whistle.

If I don't get him out after six-plus seconds (possibly including a warning) the coach (if he's paying attention to the game) will certainly let me know about the situation. In almost all situations, six-plus seconds is too long to legally be in the lane without a whistle, and by that time he's probably already achieved some level of illegal advantage in possibly being in the right place at the right time to get an offensive rebound.

Even the most clueless and aimless player on the court can't legally stay in the lane for eight continuous minutes.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon...._AC_SS350_.jpg