Travel much?

[Raymond]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What do you want him to say? It's obvious that the decisions are not correct. You know it, I know it, and he knows it.

So how does he respond to your email without appearing to support the guys working that D1 game? He really has to hedge his response and he did.

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree 100%. I never said that advantage/disadvantage didn't apply to fouls.

Now please give me a citation that states that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

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."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is not specified in defining the individual violation.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Advantage/disadvantage is written into the definition of a foul.

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.

[SNIPERBBB]

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If half of a player's foot is in the lane on the weak side of the floor, would you *ever* blow the whistle?

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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.

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Yeah, it grates on me when I see the ticky-tac violations that don't warrant a call.

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

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I have never considered using the concept of advantage/disadvantage in this situation.

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