calling it but dealing with the annoyances afterwards

[shishstripes]

I once discussed this same philosophy with a veteran official and their response was this:

"A violation should not be considered on an advantage/disadvantage basis. By ignoring the violation because the defense was not put at an disadvantage is taking a possession away from the defensive team putting them at a disadvantage."

Working at a tournament last year I told a player to move out of the key twice, still didn't budge, tweet, "I told you twice to move out of the key." Coach told the kid, "Even I heard him, listen to the refs while they are still talking to you."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

I once discussed this same philosophy with a veteran official and their response was this:

"A violation should not be considered on an advantage/disadvantage basis. By ignoring the violation because the defense was not put at an disadvantage is taking a possession away from the defensive team putting them at a disadvantage."

Working at a tournament last year I told a player to move out of the key twice, still didn't budge, tweet, "I told you twice to move out of the key." Coach told the kid, "Even I heard him, listen to the refs while they are still talking to you."

I haven't heard a high school coach ask for a three second call in two or three years. I just remembered the last one I called. Either early last season or the season before.

This season, I haven't even had to say much to the players; maybe three times all season. "Get out of the lane." I don't use a color or number, as it's obvious to the players who needs to get out of the lane.

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by shishstripes

I once discussed this same philosophy with a veteran official and their response was this:

"A violation should not be considered on an advantage/disadvantage basis. By ignoring the violation because the defense was not put at an disadvantage is taking a possession away from the defensive team putting them at a disadvantage."

Exactly my sentiments. If you start using advantage/disadavantage for violations, you logically end up ignoring a player who dribbles out of bounds in the backcourt without any pressure, because no disadvantage in that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Exactly my sentiments. If you start using advantage/disadavantage for violations, you logically end up ignoring a player who dribbles out of bounds in the backcourt without any pressure, because no disadvantage in that.

Here's the deal with three seconds. If you call it strictly by the book every time someone so much as has a toe on the line, the only people you will make happy are the fans. You won't please the coaches, you won't please your assigner, and you won't be happy with your schedule of games.

At upper levels, it is expected to call it a little differently than "by the book."

[Ignats75]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Exactly my sentiments. If you start using advantage/disadavantage for violations, you logically end up ignoring a player who dribbles out of bounds in the backcourt without any pressure, because no disadvantage in that.

I hope you can use sufficient judgement to tell the difference between the OP and your example.

I have called exactly one 3 second violation this year. Its usually not even an issue< as Mark D said. With today's motion offenses, it just doesn't come into play as much as it used to.