Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BillyMac
1) The reason why I have been so vehement about this thread is the single word "never" in your statement “advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations” (June 14, 2006). Never is a very strong word, but I can see from your most recent thread and from your quotes above, that you may recognize some limited exceptions to your statement.
2) To be honest with you, I really haven't enjoyed this repartee that we have continued over the past few days. I have really learned a lot from the Forum since I discovered it a few years ago, but I have been often "turned off" when some members get too personal, sometimes leading to unprofessional remarks, and at some point in this thread, I thought we were heading in that direction.
|
1) Billy, I still think that the Tower Philosophy was
never intended to apply to violations. The Tower Philosophy is basically just an explanation- and an excellent one imo also- about the principles and use of advantage/disadvantage; it is as valid now as it was 50 years ago. It tells us how to view contact situations and how to call fouls by using our attained/acquired judgement and our own personal opinion as to whether an advantage was gained or not through that contact. Now, over the years it has evolved that officials certainly
have applied advantage/disadvantage principles to
some certain violations also. Three seconds, of course, is the primary example. Another current example now maybe might be the practice of not calling a closely-guarded violation if the defender is right at the limit of being 6 feet away and is not guarding aggressively. For years, officials were also ignoring the thrower stepping over the line on a throw-in after a made basket if there was no defensive pressure. The problem is that the FED is fairly consistent through POE's and case plays that these type of violations
should be called, and advantage/disadvantage
shouldn't be used. See POE #1 in the 2004-05 rulebook re: closely guarded-- and casebook play 9.2.5 re: throw-in violations. Iow, it kinda comes down to
what violations are OK or not to be called under advantage/disadvantage principles. And the answer to that is.....I personally can't answer that unless I'm actually in the game looking at the violation. I just kinda call what seems right to me under the particular circumstance. Under a different circumstance, the exact same play might be called differently. Some violations imo
must be called
always though- examples OOB, backcourt, etc. The problem in my mind still is where do you draw the line when it comes to advantage/disadvantage
vis a vis all violations. I honestly don't think that you can say that advantage/disadvantage should apply to some violations only unless you are prepared to
always call or not call that violation without exception when it does occur. Iow, if you see a palm or travel occur with no defensive pressure apparent, you should
always ignore that violation as per your Association's teachings. Again, jmo, but I just don't think that's the right way to officiate a game.
I don't know whether that adds anything to the current discussion, but I just wanted to add that.
2) Geeze, Billy, I certainly wasn't aware that I was being "personal" and "unprofessional" in our discussion. Disagreeable-- certainly- I'll plead guilty to that. I disagreed with some of what you were saying . Still do, but you already know that. Would you please point out some examples of my "unprofessionalism" to me? If so, I would certainly then like to apologize. Seriously.