Advantage/Disadvantage

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The more and more I read this board, the more and more I do not want to ever work another lower level game. It is not my job to teach anyone anything. My job is to call the game as it relates to my judgment and my experience. I am not calling every minor violation in a lower level game any more than I would not call that way at a college game. It is the job of the players to adjust to what I call.

Peace

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

Another user posted the same thing - smart players and coaches adjust to what is being called. They shouldn't have to - they should be able to play within the defined rules of the game, and not worry about whether something is getting called or not that day - it should be called or not called, as the rules state.

I am an assistant coach for a CYO basketball team right now. Our team plays relatively clean (they're not angels, but they play relatively clean). 4 situations occurred this season:

1) Us vs Rough team with refs who call very little - we were at a major disadvantage
2) Us vs Rough team with refs who called by the book - we were at a major advantage
3) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who call very little - fair game
4) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who called by the book - fair game

Why should what the refs choose to call affect a game that much?

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

Another user posted the same thing - smart players and coaches adjust to what is being called. They shouldn't have to - they should be able to play within the defined rules of the game, and not worry about whether something is getting called or not that day - it should be called or not called, as the rules state.

I am an assistant coach for a CYO basketball team right now. Our team plays relatively clean (they're not angels, but they play relatively clean). 4 situations occurred this season:

1) Us vs Rough team with refs who call very little - we were at a major disadvantage
2) Us vs Rough team with refs who called by the book - we were at a major advantage
3) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who call very little - fair game
4) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who called by the book - fair game

Why should what the refs choose to call affect a game that much?

Without trying to sound condescending, feel free to have robots officiate your game because that's what it sounds like you want. No two officials are going to judge the same action identically.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by zakman2005000

Without trying to sound condescending, feel free to have robots officiate your game because that's what it sounds like you want. No two officials are going to judge the same action identically.

I don't believe this is even possible. I do wish, however, that officials would call more by the rules than their personal feelings or philosophy. Why have rules if you're not going to administer them?

[Adam]

Here's the thing. At the CYO level, you're going to get refs who are learning how to apply advantage/disadvantage. Not all of them are going to have it figured out.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Here's the thing. At the CYO level, you're going to get refs who are learning how to apply advantage/disadvantage. Not all of them are going to have it figured out.

They shouldn't have to. The rules say this is legal, that isn't, and they should be calling by those standards.

I'm talking high school CYO, and many of those officials are varsity officials also in our area. They are much more lenient in CYO games with what they choose to call - the rules don't change, but the officials change what they choose to call. This is where I have a problem, both as an official and as a coach.

How do I teach my kids what to do, if every game, what they can and cannot do changes? If they're calling very little, should I tell them to foul the crap out of everyone, because they can get away with it? I'm sorry - I won't tell them to break the rules intentionally, just because the refs aren't calling it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

They shouldn't have to. The rules say this is legal, that isn't, and they should be calling by those standards.

I'm talking about contact, in which the rules do say some is legal and some isn't; it's up to the judgment of the official.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm talking about contact, in which the rules do say some is legal and some isn't; it's up to the judgment of the official.

But if the rules say some is and some isn't... the rules say what is and what isn't, and there is no judgement involved. What you wrote before the semicolon contradicts what follows it. Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

Sigh...

The rules say that contact may or may not be illegal. It is up to the official to make that determination.

Simple concept, David.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

But if the rules say some is and some isn't... the rules say what is and what isn't, and there is no judgement involved. What you wrote before the semicolon contradicts what follows it. Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

The problem is that the deciding factor is often whether there's an advantage created by the contact. That is up to the judgment of the official. You don't have to like it, but it's the way the rules are written.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

But if the rules say some is and some isn't... the rules say what is and what isn't, and there is no judgement involved. What you wrote before the semicolon contradicts what follows it. Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

David, I'm late to this thread but it is quite apparent that you may have a grasp of each rule as if it stood alone. What you're missing is the ablility to put ALL the rules together into a complete understanding of the game.

Each and EVERY contact situation is to be judged not only by the actual contact but by the effect of the contact. The definitions of fouls are what can be considered a foul IF the other aspects of a foul are also satisified: advantage (for one).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

They do not have to adjust to me. If they do not adjust to me, they do not have to hire me. I call the game based on my interpretation of the rules and my personal judgment. I work with a lot of other officials that share similar opinions on judgment and interpretation that I do. If they do not like the job I am doing, then there are plenty of officials out there they can hire. Also the rules do not call themselves. Officials call the rules. I see a lot of officials that “call the game by the rules” as you said, but their judgment is suspect at best. Players and coaches have to adjust to them as well.

Peace

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They do not have to adjust to me. If they do not adjust to me, they do not have to hire me. I call the game based on my interpretation of the rules and my personal judgment. I work with a lot of other officials that share similar opinions on judgment and interpretation that I do. If they do not like the job I am doing, then there are plenty of officials out there they can hire. Also the rules do not call themselves. Officials call the rules. I see a lot of officials that “call the game by the rules” as you said, but their judgment is suspect at best. Players and coaches have to adjust to them as well.

Peace

But shouldn't they already be adjusted to playing by the rules (or outside the rules and getting called for it)? Why should they have to change game to game how they play based on which officials are there and which aren't, and what rules they choose to enforce that day?

It shouldn't be an adjustment - they should already be playing based on the rules of the game. By not calling them consistently (and adding in "judgements" which are personal, and not in the rules), we are forcing them to change how they play from game to game.

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

They should expect that their coach understands "the game" and is able to adjust to all facets of "the game" as they arise to help them make the proper adjustment to the game that they are playing.

Including the performance of the officials.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

But shouldn't they already be adjusted to playing by the rules (or outside the rules and getting called for it)? Why should they have to change game to game how they play based on which officials are there and which aren't, and what rules they choose to enforce that day?

It shouldn't be an adjustment - they should already be playing based on the rules of the game. By not calling them consistently (and adding in "judgements" which are personal, and not in the rules), we are forcing them to change how they play from game to game.

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

There is a reason why some guys get to the higher levels and there are other officials are working JH and middle school games their entire career. If you feel that there is no judgment, frankly that is a very elementary way of thinking. I know of know camp or assignor that hires officials that takes that position. If you feel I am wrong, I guess you will just have to feel that way. I am not trying to convince you personally, I just want to make clear to others that thinking like you are is going to keep them from other opportunities. I will also disagree with another poster, they is a lot of judgment in many violations. If is a carry or not takes some judgment on the part of the calling official. It is one thing to know what a rule is but you have to accurately notice it and call it appropriately.

Peace

[amcginthy]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

I'm a coach... I teach my girls, as EVERY coach should, that each game is different and each set of refs sees things different... as long as the ref is consistent in the game - from quarter to quarter, and half to half - as a coach - I have zero problems...

Now, like I said - I'm not a ref, But I'd bet that even with my inexperience, if I were officiating a game by your definition - I could call a foul / violation everytime down the court - you can't call EVERYHTING...

For goodness sake - this is why the advantage / disadvantage guidance is there - everyone interprets things different...

It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer... you'd be very surprised to find that laws (otherwise known as rules) are interpreted differently than lawyer to lawyer, judge to judge, and jury to jury...