I know that this message board usually only discusses NFHS interpretations, however i thought that the following article would be interesting for everyone to look at.
<< http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/baske...w_off_bul.html
>>

Focus in on Part B

It appears that the NCAA Womens Rule committee is really tring to take judgement out of our jobs. Any comments????

Keep smiling http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
SH

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hoopsrefBC:
I know that this message board usually only discusses NFHS interpretations, however i thought that the following article would be interesting for everyone to look at.
<< http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/basketball/officiating_bulletins/20000601_w_off_bul.html
>>

Focus in on Part B

It appears that the NCAA Womens Rule committee is really tring to take judgement out of our jobs. Any comments????

Keep smiling http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
SH<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hoopsrefBC,
That was a great "find". Thanks for posting that item.
I have heard of the yearly "MEMO", but that's the first time I have read one.
The real CCA refs learned this stuff in July at their mandatory-if-you-want-a game clinics, I bet.
mick

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>It appears that the NCAA Womens Rule committee is really tring to take judgement out of our jobs. Any comments????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that it is necessarily taking away judgment from the officials, but rather defining it.

Without defining what is illegal and what is not, there is a LOT of room for different interpretations. I think that this sort of thing has one goal in mind: Consistency.

I think that you will start to see more of this on the men's side as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bradley Batt:
I don't think that it is necessarily taking away judgment from the officials, but rather defining it.

Without defining what is illegal and what is not, there is a LOT of room for different interpretations. I think that this sort of thing has one goal in mind: Consistency.

I think that you will start to see more of this on the men's side as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judgement in the ad/dis concept. Turning the game into more black and white less grey, which i personally think is good. However many in my association disagree and say that the rules are only a guide they use when they are the ones on the court.

I think that how the rule is applied is still up for discussion. They are trying to implement consistency, but again the way it is applied and interpreted is still up for discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buck Wu:
I think that how the rule is applied is still up for discussion. They are trying to implement consistency, but again the way it is applied and interpreted is still up for discussion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have pretty much decided on the interpretation. Some of the statements are pretty clear cut "must call a foul", "don't talk to / warn the players, just call the fouls", doesn't sound like you can interpret that to mean anything different.

I skimmed them, and they seem to go both ways. It is a good base of definition, but I these ruling are too "tough". My guess is if you call an intentional foul on a post move, you'll get run. And counting the time contact is made( 2 seconds)? Again, good theory, but if there is no AD/DisAd why call it? I don't think you can put a time limit on when a disadvantage occurs from contact.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian Watson:
I skimmed them, and they seem to go both ways. It is a good base of definition, but I these ruling are too "tough". My guess is if you call an intentional foul on a post move, you'll get run. And counting the time contact is made( 2 seconds)? Again, good theory, but if there is no AD/DisAd why call it? I don't think you can put a time limit on when a disadvantage occurs from contact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the article is says that officals should stop using the ad/disad concept. And that officials shouldn't judge if any ad or disad occured. They should just call the foul.(top of page 5=+) and this comming from the head of the National coordinator of Women's basketball officiating.(NCAA)
I'm playing the devil, just thought this would be a good topic.
keep smiling
SH