Halftime adjustments?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I thought the only rule in rugby was that there aren't any rules......

Naw... I think that's the UFC.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Naw... I think that's the UFC.

Which is Rugby without the ball.

[JugglingReferee]

I'm a bit hesitant about making halftime adjustments. I've worked very hard on being a consistent official. If coaches take the time during the break to change their game, and then I go and change my game, they have reason to be frustrated by not knowing what to expect from the officials.

I think it's fair for officials to recognize at halftime the changes that the teams are making. Even this past weekend, my P and I discussed how the teams were changing their games based on the time left in the game and the score. Regional playoffs can make teams play very fundamental basketball.

[JRutledge]

I have no problem with officials making adjustments. I know it is common that officials discuss the events of the first half and then address those issues in the second half. For example, are we seeing screens and we might talk about making sure we call some things early or make sure we are not missing many illegal screens, hand checking or other things that were common in the first half.

But having said all of that, this does not mean what was witnessed was an adjustment by the officials. I also do not feel you sacrifice consistency because you decide to address things in a different half or even quarter.

[bellnier]

In rugby we take the advantage-disadvantage principle to extreme...for example, if defense (white) commits an infraction against offense (black), offense is allowed to continue play until the official deems that any advantage they may have had before the penalty was reversed by the defensive players mistake. Retention of advantage may be yardage gained, completion of pass(es), etc. and can be somewhat subjective. If no advantage is lost, then no whistle. Official announces on field 'advantage black' when the infraction is commited. The announcement is not always heard from the sidelines so to the typical observer this indeed looks like a 'rule-less' game, but in fact this concept ensures good game flow with very few interruptions.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bellnier

In rugby we take the advantage-disadvantage principle to extreme...for example, if defense (white) commits an infraction against offense (black), offense is allowed to continue play until the official deems that any advantage they may have had before the penalty was removed by the defensive players mistake. Retention of advantage may be yardage gained, completion of pass(es), etc. and is somewhat subjective. If no advantage is lost, then no whistle. Official announces on field 'advantage black' when the infraction is commited. To the typical observer, this indeed looks like a 'rule-less' game, but in fact this concept ensures good game flow with very few interruptions.

In basketball at least when it comes to fouls, that is very similar. What we call in basketball is very subjective. And that is why you will see official argue over what should be done or what should not be done. Because the rules ask for the basketball officials to not call fouls just based on contact, but to call fouls if there movement is affected which also brings a lot of subjectivity. As it relates to calling a foul from one half to another, it is possible that officials discussed these situations and decide not to be so quick to blow their whistle or in some cases to be quicker. That happens even from quarter to quarter based on the type of game that is being played.

Peace

[bellnier]

...one real difference between calling rugby and BB, then, is that when you see an infraction/foul you blow the play dead more often than not, while we won't stop play if the offended team can take advantage of the infraction...only if they fail to do so, by failing to gain yardage or complete their play (and this is where the referee's subjectivity comes into effect), do we blow the whistle. This is the case for all but a very few violations of rugby law.

What sometimes confuses me about BB officiating is the consistent application of advantage-disadvantage. In soem games I see things like hand checks with no displacement and (to my eyes) no change in advantage being called. I see this and think "Huh? that wasn't much..." and wonder why it was called in this game and not in another (this isn't a criticism by any means...)...this is admittedly maybe my bias because law violations in rugby are more black and white.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bellnier

What sometimes confuses me about BB officiating is the consistent application of advantage-disadvantage. In soem games I see things like hand checks with no displacement and (to my eyes) no change in advantage being called. I see this and think "Huh? that wasn't much..." and wonder why it was called in this game and not in another (this isn't a criticism by any means...)...this is admittedly maybe my bias because law violations in rugby are more black and white.

The hand checking foul is not just about displacement. Hand checking is a foul when there is control, directing, stopping and displacement involved. So based on your understanding that is why you are confused. You did not know all the aspects of the rule.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bellnier

...one real difference between calling rugby and BB, then, is that when you see an infraction/foul you blow the play dead more often than not, while we won't stop play if the offended team can take advantage of the infraction...only if they fail to do so, by failing to gain yardage or complete their play (and this is where the referee's subjectivity comes into effect), do we blow the whistle. This is the case for all but a very few violations of rugby law.

Jeff already addressed that but I don't think that you really understood his explanation. Yes, when we see a foul/violation, we blow the play dead. The judgment lies in deciding first whether it actually was a foul or a violation. What might be a foul in a spectator's eyes is not necessarily a foul in the calling official's eyes. We generally use advantage/disadvantage on fouls only, but that statement isn't all-encompassing either.

If we decide that it is a foul or violation, we call it immediately. If we decide it isn't, we naturally don't call anything.