These are pretty obvious travels and they do have affects on the play as it is impossible to defend.

Guess the best test to see if these were addressed is to watch Duke's games in the ACC tournament and see if Rivers gets called for travels out on the perimeter.

Plus, what can John Adams do about it? John Clougherty is the one these officials have to answer to concerning these plays.

I wasn't looking for him to do anything about it. It's obvious he won't/hasn't. I just wanted him to comment on it given that he's the officiating coordinator. It would've been nice if he addressed the situation directly but I'm not shocked at the response.

Well if they haven't been calling them all season the ACC Tournament is a pretty bad time to start :)

It is not specified in defining the individual violation.

"A player shall not..............."


as opposed to



"A player shall not................if doing so hinders the opponent."

Oversight ???
 

Good point. Now talk to me about this statement:

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 tall player; to
provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting
behavior and fair play; and to emphasize 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 or 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.

Why is the word "rule" mentioned four times, whereas the word "foul" isn't even mentioned once? Do you think that the NFHS forgot to put in the word "foul"? They have been known to screw up in the past.

Let's Go To The Rulebook ...
 

It is also written into a few other parts of the rulebook:

3-5-1: The referee shall not permit any team member to wear equipment
or apparel which, in his/her judgment, is dangerous or confusing to other players
or is not appropriate.

3-5-5: Equipment which is unnatural and/or designed to increase a
player's height or vertical reach or to gain a competitive advantage shall not be
permitted.

Granted, these are not violations, but they're not fouls either. So maybe the Intent and Purpose of the Rules, in regard to advantage/disadvantage, deals with fouls, a few other things that aren't fouls, but never in regard to violations? Is that the intent of the NFHS? I would think that they would have spelled that out more clearly, especially with the "Intent" statement being at the beginning of the rulebook, in such a prominent place.

I will concede that I do not have a NFHS citation that states that violations, specifically, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle. However, I challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Your move.

9.2.5 SITUATION A:

Thrower A1 inadvertently steps onto 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.

Probably not, but I will feel bad about not calling it.

Really? When I have one (the joke I use is that I have about one a month) it pretty much calls itself. It's not something that I actively look to call.

Yeah, it grates on me when I see the ticky-tac violations that don't warrant a call. I don't actively look to call it, but I mainly do Frosh and JV so there's frequently nothing better to look at as lead.

Oh, well those levels will yield more of these. By the time players hit varsity they pretty much know to keep moving, in my experience.

Intent And Purpose Of All The Rules Except Rule Nine ???
 

I have never considered using the concept of advantage/disadvantage in this situation. Now tell me about your call when a free throw shooter holds the ball for eleven seconds before shooting the ball. Wait. You probably never got to eleven because you sounded your whistle when you got to ten, that's the rule, or in this case, the violation? Right? Can't consider advantage/disadvantage here? Right? Just blow the whistle when you get to ten seconds? Right?

I still concede that I do not have a NFHS citation that states that violations, specifically, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle. However, I still challenge anyone to cite anything that states that only fouls, and nothing other than fouls, fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle, or that violations, specifically, do not fall under the advantage/disadvantage principle.

Next move?

Three Seconds ...
 

Maybe it grates on you because you are considering the concept of advantage/disadvantage? I'm probably wrong. It's just a wild guess.

Why not? Where specifically do you draw your line in determining which violations you use A/D, and which ones you don't?