Advantage Disadvantage, Etc.

[BillyMac]

To followup on Jurassic Referee's recent post, for your information:

NFHS 2006-07 Points of Emphasis

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals

The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.

A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:

• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team “wants” to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

• Closely Guarded – Officials must properly judge the six-foot distance and begin a closely-guarded count when a defender obtains a legal guarding position. Failure to properly judge the six-foot distance and require the defender to be within three or four feet of the dribbler before beginning the closely-guarded count puts the defensive player in an unfair position. The count terminates when the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender.

• Coaching Box – In states that authorize the use of the optional coaching box, the head coach is the only person on the bench that is permitted to stand and must remain in the coaching box. All other bench personnel must remain seated at all times except when a team member is reporting to the scorer’s table, during time-outs or intermissions, and to spontaneously react to a play.

B. Proper Signal Use. Signals are a means of communication by officials to scorers, players, coaches, spectators and media. Deviation from approved NFHS signals is unacceptable.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

To followup on Jurassic Referee's recent post, for your information:

NFHS 2006-07 Points of Emphasis

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals

The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.

A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:

• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team “wants” to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

The "contact" entry above is a perfect example of how the Fed is out of touch. I was at a jamboree today that was staffed almostly exclusively by officials inexperienced in 3-whistle mechanics. One of the crews I watched finish up a ballgame followed the "contact" guidelines above to a T, and because they did, the very nearly lost control of the game late. Team B is down eight points in the last minute, trying to give a foul, but not coming up with much in the way of contact. Lots of swipes, some light contact; three or four of these go uncalled (passing on this level of contact earlier in the game would have been fine), so finally team B gets in a good, solid push. Intentional foul rightly called, then crew has to step in to break up a near-fight.

If they had allowed Team B to give a touch foul, things are much better. I'll take my medicine from higher-ups if they choose to give it to me, but if a team is trying to give a foul late, I'm going to let them do it without letting things get to the point where they feel they have to commit an "obvious" foul for me to blow.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jbduke

The "contact" entry above is a perfect example of how the Fed is out of touch. I was at a jamboree today that was staffed almostly exclusively by officials inexperienced in 3-whistle mechanics. One of the crews I watched finish up a ballgame followed the "contact" guidelines above to a T, and because they did, the very nearly lost control of the game late. Team B is down eight points in the last minute, trying to give a foul, but not coming up with much in the way of contact. Lots of swipes, some light contact; three or four of these go uncalled (passing on this level of contact earlier in the game would have been fine), so finally team B gets in a good, solid push. Intentional foul rightly called, then crew has to step in to break up a near-fight.

If they had allowed Team B to give a touch foul, things are much better. I'll take my medicine from higher-ups if they choose to give it to me, but if a team is trying to give a foul late, I'm going to let them do it without letting things get to the point where they feel they have to commit an "obvious" foul for me to blow.

I disagree with you 100%. Is there anything else that you are going to give to a team just because they want it?

While fouling late in the game is a legitimate strategy, it must be done properly. A team which cannot execute that tactic skillfully does not deserve to be rewarded by an official, but instead should suffer by having to watch the clock continue to run or be penalized with an intentional foul if appropriate.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

While fouling late in the game is a legitimate strategy, it must be done properly. A team which cannot execute that tactic skillfully does not deserve to be rewarded by an official, but instead should suffer by having to watch the clock continue to run or be penalized with an intentional foul if appropriate.

Not surprising, really, but I agree with this completely. What I say in my pregame or halftime talk is that if the winning team is holding the ball and is willing to take the foul and shoot the FTs, then we call the foul on the first contact so it doesn't escalate.

But if the winning team is playing "keep away" and is clearly trying to let the clock run, then we're not going to stop them until they actually get fouled. If the losing team gets frustrated and does something stupid, then we have to deal with that.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Not surprising, really, but I agree with this completely. What I say in my pregame or halftime talk is that if the winning team is holding the ball and is willing to take the foul and shoot the FTs, then we call the foul on the first contact so it doesn't escalate.

But if the winning team is playing "keep away" and is clearly trying to let the clock run, then we're not going to stop them until they actually get fouled. If the losing team gets frustrated and does something stupid, then we have to deal with that.

Thanks for the insight. I've called it this way, but I've never heard it put this way, nor heard it explained that way in a pregame. I'll probably implement this into my pregames. Thanks again.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree with you 100%. Is there anything else that you are going to give to a team just because they want it?

While fouling late in the game is a legitimate strategy, it must be done properly. A team which cannot execute that tactic skillfully does not deserve to be rewarded by an official, but instead should suffer by having to watch the clock continue to run or be penalized with an intentional foul if appropriate.

Nice strawman, counselor. I'm not going to allow them to give the foul "because they want it," but because I have a legitimate expectation that things are going to hell in a hurry fast if the trailing team starts thinking, "Okay, I'm going to make damn sure he calls the next one." You may be quite content in the knowledge that you have the intentional foul call at your disposal should you need it. My point is that if it gets to the point that an intentional foul call is necessary, then you face a substantial likelihood that the game has problems that an I.F. cannot easily resolve.

Now, if you were to criticize me for not calling an intentional foul on that first "light swipe," I can live with that, but I'm left wondering about the Fed POE I cited above.

The question certainly highlights a tension (at least in my mind) between maintaining the integrity of the competition vis-a-vis enforcing rules as written, and mainting the integrity of the purpose of the competition, which entails doing what we can to ensure the safety of the participants.

[Kevzebra]

I have to look at it this way: I feel that great officials know when they have to officiate and when they can let games flow. Some games require 65 fouls, others do not. Some players can take a little bump, go to the hole and score; some cannot. It really isn't the old decision of "advantage" or "disadvantage"....it is more like how good our judgement is . Can you decide when to call a foul and when to let a little contact go? I give a great example of this:

I watched two HS officials doing a christmas tournament game. They had 7 (yes SEVEN) and-ones in the FIRST HALF! Now, there are times when you have to blow those, but for the most part, 6 of them were play-ons. I think that is one aspect that is being discussed here.

Games that are very physical demand that you evaluate plays carefully and decide what needs to be called. I can think of looking at the Mens D one if you want to see some games that get way too physical. You never see a "pass and crash" called there (well, not never but rarely).