I think what you might be referring to is weakening of moves, squares, and color complexes.
Many lower rated players knee-jerk WAY too much. Oh, the knight went to f6, I must prevent Ng4 and play h3, and they play h3 at a time when it is highly unnecessary and waste time on a move like that.
Another common scenario in amateur play is let's say White has already advanced his 2 central pawns. His a-pawn, b-pawn, and c-pawn are all on their starting square. White has already developed his Queen's Knight to d2 and before that his Queen's Bishop to either f4 or g5. Black plays ...Qb6, attacking b2. The first thing an amateur will do is play b3, which is often the WORST of the three options. The first option is to ignore it and use the time Black is taking to grab your pawn to attack something else, maybe his king even. But let's say you cannot afford to lose the pawn, often the correct move is Rb1. Looks like a passive square for the Rook. It might be, but he won't be there for ever. By keeping your pawns on a2, b2, and c2, you control all the queenside squares on the third rank. When it is time to start moving one, it will likely be the c-pawn, though you don't want to advance pawns on the side you are weak.
The problem with b3 is that while you saved the b-pawn, you have created permanent weaknesses on the dark squares, like c3 and a3. If you allow him to take on b2, that might also weaken the dark squares, but it is taking Black a lot of time to do it. By playing b3, you are doing it for him!
In the mean time, the problem with a3 (or h3 in the case of f2-g2-h2) is the square c4 (f4) because if a3 is advanced and Black goes Nc4, kicking it away with b3 might not be possible if a3 then hangs.
Many amateurs advance pawns to protect them or to cover a square when the weaknesses they create outweigh the benefits, so advancements of pawns, while necessary to attack and get pieces out, are often done at the wrong time by amateurs for defensive purposes. Usually of you have two legitimate ways to defend something, and those two options are a piece move and a pawn move, 4 out of every 5 times, the piece move is right.
I've been playing chess for a few years, but only recently started trying to learn as much as possible. One way I'm doing that is by playing a much higher-rated coach on this website and taking its advice. I also review the games I lose and follow the website's advice on those. I'm trying to understand why the general advice differs in the two situations. My guess right now is that the correct movement of pawns must differ more than I thought it would, depending on how the game is progressing. It is either that, or as one gets better, the way to go about pawn movement in the beginning changes.
When I play the coach she seems insistent on keeping pawns in there original location for as long as possible. Especially the ones near the side. Then when I was reviewing one of my lost games the coach seemed very generous with pawn movement suggestions.
What is the general rule about this? Do you think it was only due to how that specific game was progressing? If that is the case is there general advice in terms of something quantifiable about the progression of the early game? Maybe for example "when your opponent is bringing out his Bishops right away?" Any advice will help. Thanks.