3 Seconds

[dee33]

Just a general question I had a game last night and the coach was barking about 3 seconds all freaking night to whoever was in the lead and there was no adavantage disadvantage going on because the ball was passed around the top of the key majority of the game. He called a timeout barked some more why arent yall calling this then begins the rant of three seconds is 1,2,3 toot should be a whistle. Mind you the other coach was coaching didnt have a care in the world about the calls. How would you guys have handled this situation?

[JetMetFan]

Well...there's no advantage/disadvantage component to three seconds or any other violation. Advantage/disadvantage only applies to contact.

[dee33]

I agree jetman but they didnt build a tent or a fort in the paint and like i said it was really not that much post play going on would you call it or leave it be how would you handle that coach???

[PG_Ref]

By rule, the coach was correct about the three secs. call. But, a lot of officials don't like calling 3 secs. Check with your leadership. When in Rome ...

[ref3808]

If the violation is there I'm going to get it. As was pointed out, there is no advantage/disadvantage to consider.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by dee33

I agree jetman but they didnt build a tent or a fort in the paint and like i said it was really not that much post play going on would you call it or leave it be how would you handle that coach???

That’s cool. Just emphasizing advantage/disadvantage isn’t an issue.

My way of handling it? Well, I’ll address what appears to have happened in your game and go from there. If the HC was “barking…all freaking night” and no one addressed him, frankly the crew brought that headache on itself. I’d have to think at some point early on he made these comments while one of the officials was next to him. Ask him, quietly, “Coach, how may I help you?” When he answers:

*Tell him, by rule, why what he’s asking for isn’t a violation, or…
*Tell him you’ll make sure to keep an eye on things but you haven’t seen one yet

If you address him early in some form that should quiet him down. If he keeps it up at some point someone has to say, “Coach, I hear you but that’s enough.” If he keeps going…well, you know what to do.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Advantage/disadvantage only applies to contact.

JetMetFan: I slightly disagree. Please cite something, in writing, that states that advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations. I will agree that, in almost all occasions, advantage/disadvantage applies to fouls, but I would not agree that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

Poll on applying advantage/disadvantage to violations (Ignore the poll. I hate polls.)

In the immortal words of the infamous Jurassic Referee: "There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion (read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JetMetFan: I slightly disagree. Please cite something, in writing, that states that advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations. I will agree that, in almost all occasions, advantage/disadvantage applies to fouls, but I would not agree that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

Poll on applying advantage/disadvantage to violations (Ignore the poll. I hate polls.)

In the immortal words of the infamous Jurassic Referee: "There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion (read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter.

If instead of advantage/disadvantage you apply intent and purpose and you have a way to not call 3 seconds just because a player happens to be in the lane for 3 seconds.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If instead of advantage/disadvantage you apply intent and purpose and you have a way to not call 3 seconds just because a player happens to be in the lane for 3 seconds.

When I did my floor training as a brand new official, we reffed 4th and 5th grade game or something like that. During one of my breaks, my observer and I had this conversation:

Him: "What's the purpose of the 3-second rule?"

Me: [deer in headlights. totally overwhelmed.] Confused silence. . .

Him: "It's to keep the big man from camping out under the basket and getting easy scores, right?"

Me: Nodding. . .

Him: "Do you see any big men out there?"

[dee33]

You guys nailed it I never say a specific number I just say paint they step out why because I had said numbers before and a coach had mentioned to me well why did you tell 5 to get out the paint but you couldnt tell 22 to watch his hands so I just keep it simple paint, hands etcand they oblige they know who you're refferring to. As far as the coach this was my response to him and I'm sure alot will be against this but I told him this after the timeout rant I said coach you know everytime I have my count going and you start with your 3 seconds rant I lose count and have to start over again yup he was pissed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JetMetFan: I slightly disagree. Please cite something, in writing, that states that advantage/disadvantage does not apply to violations. I will agree that, in almost all occasions, advantage/disadvantage applies to fouls, but I would not agree that advantage/disadvantage only applies to fouls.

Poll on applying advantage/disadvantage to violations (Ignore the poll. I hate polls.)

In the immortal words of the infamous Jurassic Referee: "There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion (read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter.

You won't find "advantage/disadvantage" in the rules for fouls, either. What you will find, however, is that the foul rule indicates there needs to be some sort of obstructing, impeding, displacement, etc., in order to be considered anything but incidental (legal) contact. No such provision exists in the definitions of "violations."

As Camron notes, though, you can always use the "intent and purpose" stuff.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If instead of advantage/disadvantage you apply intent and purpose and you have a way to not call 3 seconds just because a player happens to be in the lane for 3 seconds.

Originally Posted by Adam

You can always use the "intent and purpose" stuff.

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.

[Adam]

While there may be no advantage component in the rule, I don't know of anyone that wants 3 seconds called strictly by the rule. You should, however, be talking the players out of the lane. If they don't listen, go ahead and get one or two early.

Note that this is without regard to the coach bitching on the sideline. That's an entirely different matter. From the way you describe it, he wouldn't have had his coaching box long.

Originally Posted by dee33

He called a timeout barked some more why arent yall calling this then begins the rant of three seconds is 1,2,3 toot should be a whistle.

Maybe I'm picturing this wrong, but I don't see myself allowing this to go without a T.

But if he had been ranting 'all freaking night', it would have been addressed sooner.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

While there may be no advantage component in the rule, I don't know of anyone that wants 3 seconds called strictly by the rule. You should, however, be talking the players out of the lane. If they don't listen, go ahead and get one or two early.

There has been more emphasis lately, at least in these parts, for officials to stop talking to players and just blow the whistle. Directives coming from higher ups ...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

There has been more emphasis lately, at least in these parts, for officials to stop talking to players and just blow the whistle. Directives coming from higher ups ...

Frankly, I can go either way. I've got no personal preference, anyway. What we're doing works for us (in that there really aren't a lot of players hanging out in the lane anyway), but if *they* decided we should just start blowing the whistle and stop talking, I'd do it.