Not Intended By A Rule ...
 

(Note: Don't confuse advantage/disadvantage with the Tower Philosophy which is similar, but is not exactly the same as advantage/disadvantage.)

Prove it.

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 of 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.

Rules include both fouls, and violations. The "Intent and Purpose" preamble to the rulebook refers to rules, it doesn't solely refer to fouls.

I even got the late, great, Jurassic Referee to admit that advantage/disadvantage may apply to some violations, and three seconds was one of the two he put into that category. The second was a ten second count on a free throw. Getting Jurassic Referee to partially agree with me was definitely the highlight of my Forum career. That was the closest that I ever got to becoming an esteemed member, I peaked, flamed out, and it's been all downhill from there.

Because that was never the purpose nor the intent of the 3 second rule.

If the player is attempting to get out but is blocked by an opponent, I will not call 3 seconds.

To me, that's just a terrible choice to make on the court.

You are twisting two separate things together. (again)

Advantage/Disadvantage is written into the definition of a personal foul, though it does not use those exact terms.

"contact which hinders a player....."

No such language is used in any violation definition. There are different interpretations of how strictly to enforce violations, perhaps most notably 3 second violations, (and NCAA traveling) but these interpretations have no support in the strict reading of the written rule.

And Maybe The Powerball Numbers ...
 

The exact words "advantage" and disadvantage" are included in the "Intent and Purpose" preamble to the rulebook. It doesn't have a number, i.e. Rule 4, but it is an important part of the "written" rules.

Good luck calling a ten second violation the next time a player takes ten and a half seconds to shoot a free throw.

Is there an internet in heaven? If so, Jurassic Referee, please send us a sign.

Thanks for Your Support ...
 

"Purpose ... intent"? Sure sounds like a reference to the "Intent and Purpose" preamble to the rulebook. Doesn't the NFHS say something about advantage and disadvantage in that preamble?

Think about it a bit more. This is not about advantage/disadvantage, but rather about strictness of enforcement, which also applies to fouls. (how much does the player have to be hindered) Think of it this way. The 5'3" player in the lane was not gaining an advantage, so the official didn't call it. Probably none of us would at 3. But at 5, some would call it. At 7, others would call it. If he's still there at 10, probably most would call it.

The little guy still probably was gaining no more advantage than he was at 3.

I'm done with this.


I've never actually seen this happen possibly because sometimes, especially in my early years, I didn't even have a count going. But I'm thinking there would be few, if any complaints from anyone because 10 in this situation seems like a really long time to me. Questions on this call would probably be mainly from those who were not even aware it was a rule.

You know, this isn't about calling or not calling the three second violation. Doesn't really matter to me if the 63" player pulled two sticks out of his (probably fairly small) pockets and sat down in the lane and started a campfire.

It's about saying too much to a coach.

I didn't see a question in the OP. I'm guessing the coach was hollering for 3-seconds. Why even have the conversation? Simply let him go on thinking you missed it and keep the game going.

If he asks the question politely, tell him you didn't have him in there too long and that you'll look for it in the future. Then don't change anything.

Thanks to everyone for your replies.

The coach did complain and I tried to explain.

If the kid had been taller to box off or get a rebound, I would have called it. this kid was under 100 pounds and short. He was up against 3 players from the other team that were about 6' tall and over 160 pounds.

My point was to keep the game flowing.

Coach was upset because the other team had made a run and caught up. That's really what it was.

Like Rich said. I'm not even addressing this complaint. If he asks a polite question, I might say I was giving him a chance to get out since he was trying. After his warning, however, I'm not going to discuss it later.

The one thing that working a sideline in football (I hadn't regularly worked a sideline in over a decade prior to this year, when I moved to a new level for me) was that sometimes it's better to just pretend the coach didn't say anything. Many times, the coach is just venting some frustration and will move on very quickly.

That is, unless the official keeps the conversation going.

I thought the point of the thread was to have better communications with a coach. If that is the case, then the fact that you told a coach you ignored a rule because of the height of a player caused the conversation to go farther than it should have. If you don't believe that to be the case then I don't know what other kind of answer you are looking for.

You not only said too much, you told a coach you purposedly ignored a rule. Next time, if you really want keep the game flowing and shut the coach down then your best answer would have be "you know what coach, you might be right about this one."

I meant that my point in NOT calling the 3 seconds, was to keep the game flowing.

Oh, I understood that. But in the end the amount of time that was saved was offset by the aggravation of having to address the coach multiple times.

You know you didn't call it b/c you just wanted to keep the game moving. But you don't want to have an on-going dialogue over a single insignificant play. So "coach, you're probably right" lets you get away with the no-call without having to explain it AND shuts the coach down at the same time.

Agreed. That's the sort of vindictive officiating that will relegated a guy to middle school blowouts and YMCA games.