Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by ditttoo
Ignore violations? I would suggest it happens all the time...advantage v disadvantage. It is even mentioned in the "book" that not every individual violation/foul must or should be called.
|
Interesting. Where may I find that language in the "book"? I knew that you could apply advantage/disadvantage to physical contact, but I was never aware that it was written in the "book" that you could also apply it to actual violations and fouls.
|
IMO, you should use the concept of advantage/disadvantage. I continue to use the Tower Philosophy ever since it was taught to me at camps and it is written for use in our state association's CBOA handbook.
I have not seen it written in any of the NFHS books but used in principle such as;
SITUATION:
The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5, running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5s intentional violation should be ignored and A1s activity should continue without interruption.
COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (9-3-2; 10-1-8)
|
Yup, I certainly do agree that if there is a violation that is
"specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense", it should be
temporarily ignored- or ignored completely in some instances. What I can't see is how any of this is also applicable to an average old run-of-the-mill violation- such as a missed elbow- that
isn't designed to stop the clock or take an advantage away. Iow, I'm still not sure
what violations you're saying should or should not be called to "make the game better". Aren't you basically saying that violations are "judgement" calls? If so, are all violations supposed to be "judgement" calls, or are just
some violations supposed to be judgement calls? And if it's "some", what are the violations that are in this category?
I was also aware of the Tower Philosophy- and have been for many years. I agree with it too. However, that philosophy was taught to me as
only being applicable to making a decision as to whether
physical contact was a
foul or not. I was always under the impression that the Tower Philosophy was never written with "violations" in mind and was also never meant to apply to "violations" either. I don't think that there is any mention of anything else than "contact" in the text of the particular philosophy.
I'm not trying to be a smart-azz with these questions btw. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. It kinda looks like we've been taught entirely different principles.
Edited to add: Btw, jmo but I think that the FED summed up the complete Tower Philosophy anyway under R4-27--INCIDENTAL CONTACT.
[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 17th, 2005 at 09:42 AM]