[quote=Jurassic Referee]
They're getting closer to being traffic cops....keep the show moving and ignore the minor stuff.

If this is the case, the policman can replace Hank Nichols according to you.;)

[QUOTE=truerookie]Nope, you're still failing to understand the basic premise of your own analogy.

According to me, a policeman could replace the current NBE director of officiating, whoverthehell that is. Or maybe some general who knows dickall about officiating......

1) Please point me to where I can find some actual proof that this statement is even close to being accurate. I await your response.

2)Bull Pucky! I know the basic NBE traveling rules. They ain't much different from the NCAA/FED rules. I also have eyes. I saw a player take <b>FIVE(5)</b> freaking steps on a dunk in a recent playoff game with no whistle. It just happens too damn often in the NBE to be a blown call either.

3) Exactly. Who cares if they take 5 steps? Nobody got an advantage. And it's entertainment anyway. And btw, thanks for making my point.

4) Fouls? I'm coming up to 50 years in basketball officiating. I don't have a clue what a foul is in the NBE. The only thing that I know is that they are consistently inconsistent when it comes to calling them.

You have your opinion. I have mine. And mine is that the NBE officials today could be the same ones that do the Globetrotter games. Who cares about little things like rules when the main focus isn't competition anymore but entertainment? And that isn't the officials' fault either. It's the fault of the people giving direction to those officials. And it's now coming back to bite those people in the azz....and they deserve it.

I guess the NBA Referees will have to go to IRAQ now!!!!! LOL!!!!

I learned a long time ago that in business if you have a general manager job open, and a choice between a very good leader and a very good technician (meaning, someone with a solid background in the technique of whatever the company's product or service is), you hire the leader. The leader knows how to motivate people and get results and he can always hire a staff level tactician.

However, in my above example, I'm assuming the leader knows what a car is, or knows what a computer is, or knows a little about the product or service in the first place. He may be hired for a software company and not be able to write a line of code, but he can use the software after some training. In this case, this person hired may be a good leader, but he doesn't know what a computer is and he's being asked to run a computer company (e.g.).

Chief Officer ...
 

I'm a retired teacher. Here in Connecticut, all public school systems, individual towns, or regional school districts, have as their "chief officer" a Superintendent of Schools, who, in Connecticut, must have at least a master's degree in education, and started out as a classroom teacher, before moving up the ladder to school department chair, assistant principal, principal, assistant superintendent, etc.

The Superintendent, in many towns, and regions, controls a budget of millions of dollars, controls an inventory of school buildings, furniture, books, etc, worth millions of dollars, and supervises hundreds of teachers. It is my understanding that a few Midwestern states, Minnesota, or Michigan, pop into my mind, are experimenting with Superintendents that may lack a college degree in education, may not have taught, but may hold a college degree in business, and may have experience as a chief officer of a business, or a corporation. I have heard that these experiments have been successful, and other states are considering trying this model. If I were still teaching, I wouldn't mind having non-educator working several levels above me, as long as he, or she, surrounded himself, or herself, with assistants who were educators.

Just my opinion. Don't know if it helps this discussion, or not.

1) Good for Joe DeRosa. My personal <b>guess</b> is that it's 1.23%. Now, you tell me. Which one of our <b>guesses</b> is right...and prove it.

2) Are you serious? I sureashell do and I try to teach it too. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the philosophy. You do <b>NOT</b> use advantage/disadvantage on freaking <b>violations</b>.....unless you really are officiating in the NBE. That's absolutely ridiculous. You apply advantage/disadvantage to contact to decide whether that contact is legal or not. Are you really saying that we should ignore traveling in the backcourt if there's no pressure? Or maybe a dribbler stepping on a sideline with nobody around? I don't know where you learned your philosophies from...it sounds like it came from the NBE .....but <b>real</b> basketball doesn't use those philosophies

3) You know how I can tell people who don't really have a good argument? They use phrases like "don't be over-officious" instead of using actual rules, mechanics and accepted officiating philosophies. Sorry, but that one just doesn't work with anybody that's officiated more than a season or two. It's meaningless.

4) Yup, they blow a lot of fouls in the NBE. Not much traveling or palming or little things like that, but a lot of fouls. Too bad they don't call those fouls the same against the home team or the stars though.

5) You missed my point completely. I'm not knocking the officials. I'm knocking the clowns who are <b>making</b> the officials call the pro game under entertainment philosophies rather than by their own rules. I'm blaming the jerks who tell the officials not to call traveling if someone is about to make one of those ESPN highlight reel dunks.

Something tells me that we just ain't gonna agree in this one.:)

He's probably looking to take it in an "urban camouflage" face-paint direction.:D

Just want to be sure.......

Are you saying that you agree with that philosophy for the NBE <b>only</b>? Or are you saying that you agree with that philosophy for all levels?

Here We Go Again ...
 

Jurassic Referee: I hesitate to open up an old wound, but I have to respond to your statement above, for some rookie officials who may be reading this thread.

"You do not use advantage/disadvantage on violations."
We are 99% in agreement. I just think that your statement is too general, and, in my opinion, is not supported, in this general form, by written rule, although, I will admit, is does seem to be supported by written case book interpretations.

From the Rule Book, please note that there is no differentiation between fouls and violations, but rather to rules in general:
The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules
The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasis cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.
Therefore, 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 of 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.

From the Case Book, certainly supports your view:
9.2.5 Situation: Thrower A1 inadvertently steps through the plane of the boundary line and touches the court inbounds. A1 immediately steps back into normal out-of-bounds throw-in position. The contact with the court was during a situation: (a) with; or (b) without defensive pressure on the throw-in team. Ruling: A violation in both (a) and (b). Comment: Whether or not there was defensive pressure or whether or not stepping on the court was inadvertent, it is a violation and no judgment is required in making the call.

"You apply advantage/disadvantage to contact to decide whether that contact is legal or not".
Agree. 100%. Fully supported by the rules.
Rule 4-27 Art. 1: The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.
Art. 2: Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.
Art. 3: Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

"Are you really saying that we should ignore traveling in the backcourt if there's no pressure?"
I agree with you 100% on this. I would never ignore this. Why? This is what I've been taught, and in 27 years I've never seen a high quality varsity official ignore this.

"Or maybe a dribbler stepping on a sideline with nobody around?"
I agree with you 100% on this. I would never ignore this. Why? This is what I've been taught, in 27 years I've never seen a high quality varsity official ignore this, and the Case Book play noted above fully supports this.

"Basketball doesn't use those philosophies."
OK. Here we go. Using the Spirit and Purpose of the Rules, and what I've been taught about the Tower Philosophy, I'm ignoring the violation if a free throw shooter uses twelve seconds to release his, or her shot. I'm also going to ignore the violation by a player who gets "lost" in the lane for four seconds, not posting up anybody, not preparing to set a screen for a teammate, just standing with one foot outside the lane, and the other foot on elbow, although I may warn such a player to "Get out of the lane".

I know what I'm stating seems to make enforcing the Spirit and Purpose portion of the Rule Book like ordering off an a-la-carte menu, order this, don't order that; enforce this, don't enforce that, but this is what I've been taught, and this is what I have observed high quality officials doing for many, many years, which is why I've been interpreting advantage/disadvantage to applying to some violations.

OK Jurassic Referee. Let me brace myself. I'm ready. Let me have it. Give me your best shot.

I really do not know why you think we get traveling calls correct at the lower levels any better at the NBA level. I see travels all the time not called properly. The NBA is not special in this part of the game.

Peace

Then please do all of us a favor and find some other sport to officiate. Your philosophy has NO place in high school or college basketball.

Freaking ridiculous.....:rolleyes:

The two violations that you listed above are the only two violations that possibly could be said to be officiated through advantage/disadvantage. However, note that if you <b>DO</b> warn, you should only be warning that player <b>ONCE</b>. You don't give them <i>carte blanche</i> to take as long as they want on <b>all</b> free throws or roost in the lane <b>every</b> time down the court.

That I agree with. However, a <b>general</b> statement that advantage/disadvantage only applies to contact is completely correct imo.
Otherwise, you get officials who try to apply that philosophy to <b>ALL</b> violations at <b>ALL</b> levels. Case in point....this thread. That does nothing but hurt all of us imo.

Please let us know where the "cut off point" is between 1/10 of a second and two extra steps so we then know when to call the travel and when not to call it. Is it at 1/2 second or perhaps 3/4 step? Inquiring minds want to know.

Making a call like this has nothing to do with "advantage/disadvantage". Either the player traveled or he didn't. If he did and you saw it, call it. If he didn't or if he did and you didn't see it, don't call it. It's a simple game.

On what other rules do you flip a coin to decide if you will enforce them or not?

Wrong, nothing what you do in your area hurts me in any way. First of all people in my area think basketball is better in my area than most places in the state. Then when teams go across the country they think officiating is better (not my words). They only care about goes on in their area, just like most political issue in this country. Only when people are forced to do they pay attention to the Presidential Election. And if I have a different philosophy than I do or anyone here, it really does not change what we do.

I also think it is not called for to tell someone not to officiate only because you disagree with a particular philosophy they share. What you think about this is not the end all be all of what should be called or not. I can tell you from where I have been this summer for camps that clearly is not the case. Are you going to tell others that are working and assigning Division 1 basketball they should stop officiating because they teach things you do not agree with? You might, but they likely are going to tell you where to go. ;)

Peace