|
|||
Quote:
BTW - what's the official doing "handing" the ball to the shooter anyway?
__________________
Yom HaShoah |
|
|||
Quote:
mick |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Church Basketball "The brawl that begins with a prayer" |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Okay, I thought about this for awhile, and finally decided to contribute my 1 cent worth.
I've said this before, but I'm telling you, the whole idea of advantage/disadvantage just sets up referees for more criticism. I understand why you say you may not call a lane violation, devdog, but if the shooter misses the free throw after the "uncalled violation", what's the first thing you're going to hear from the coaches and fans? Right or wrong, they're going to wonder why you didn't call the violation. I mean the FT shooter may be a 30% shooter, but they're not going to see it that way. Honestly, I understand you can't call every ticky-tack contact, etc - you have to draw the line somewhere. But, just realize, the more a referee depends on advantage/disadvantage and accumulatory contact in deciding what fouls/violations to call, the more criticism the referee is going to hear.
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. - Catherine Aird |
|
|||
Quote:
JMO. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
I agree, i feel advantage/disadvantage is the key, if it isn't, what is? Why do we officiate? So, the game is played fairly. hwo do we keep it fair, by calling things which in our judgement would result in an advantage or a disadvantage.
__________________
If you don't take opportunity as it comes, you are lost in the sauce! |
|
|||
Quote:
I wouldn't be totally comfortable using A/D in the instance of such a lane violation, or most violations for that matter, ... in most games. But Advantage/Disadvantage, with regard to violations, is a whole 'nother subject. mick |
|
|||
Just to make sure I don't mislead anybody, I'm not a ref, just a lowly howler monkey. Since coming here I've learned a lot. In fact, I spent some of last weekend reading the NFHS case book. I'm not real enlightened, though; its the 2001-2002 version.
Anyway, since we're talking about ad/disad, how do you reconcile those kinds of calls within a refereeing team for a given game? Do you discuss those kinds of things in your pre-game? I had a nice e-mail from one of the regulars here, describing how NCAA officials manage ad/disad. But, it made me wonder - do the organizations you're associated with discuss suggested practices for ad/disad and other judgmental items? Would make it a lot easier if you had guidelines to follow.
__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning. - Catherine Aird |
|
|||
Quote:
Yes, we pre-game the A/D principles. It seems that the more experienced officials have longer and deeper pre-games. The pre-game is the "mind stretching" that warms it up so we don't get brain cramps. The basic premise of A/D is to make a determination if some "contact" affected the result of an action. A "slow whistle" usually indicates that the official is using the A/D principle and is waiting to see the result. There has been lengthy discussion and disagreement on how far to carry the A/D principles into the areas of calling or passing on violations. mick |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The rule book requires us to consider advantage/disadvantage. We can't call every single bit of contact. That's why the term incidental contact is in the rule book as well. |
Bookmarks |
|
|