Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BillyMac
1) In my opinion, this specific situation does not require the use of the advantage/disadvantage principle because of a principle that I don't think is covered by any NFHS or IAABO (my affiliation) rule, case book play, or interpretation: "Call the obvious".
2)Jurassic Referee: It would be interesting for me to find out exactly how you would call the original play cited in this thread. I'm talking about a real game situation where this instantly happened on the side of the lane that you are responsible for covering during a foul shot without the advantage of being a Monday morning quarterback or the benefit of hindsight: Would you interpret the hand in the lane as leaving a marked lane space ? If not, how would you use the rules to explain your interpretation to a polite coach ? If so, how would you use the rules to explain your interpretation to a polite coach ? If you believed that a violation had occurred (barring a made basket, disconcertion, or any other odd occurence), would you pass on the call due to advantage disadvantage principle ? Would you utilize the "call the obvious" that a lot of officials use in their pregame conference.
3) Finally, I can't believe that Rusty's original thread hasn't generated more interest from the Forum. Rusty's play should have opened up a giant can of worms: Foot crossing the plane of the lane line ? Leaving a marked lane space ? Play that may not be covered by the rules ? Is this play already covered by the rules ? Advantage disadvantage ? Call the obvious ? Are many of us on vacation ? Is this microphone working ?
|
1) Billy, just for clarity's sake, what violations do you feel that advantage/disadvantage applies to, and what violations do you feel that advantage/disadvantage do
not apply to? Please note though, for the record, that I still completely disagree with your premise that either advantage/disadvantage or the Tower Philosophy do apply to violations in the first place. When Chuck Elias returns, I'll ask him again if he received any feedback from his e-mail to the national IAABO interpreter, as per the thread that I cited. If not, I know several people that are going to the fall IAABO meeting in Toronto, including Chuck; I'll see if I can get one of them to acquire an IAABO clarification at that meeting.
2) From those other threads that Nevada cited, I think that you can safely say that I'm
still gonna call a lane violation if any body part of a player in a marked lane space touches the lane before the foul shot restrictions end. Iow, I haven't changed my mind. That's the purpose and intent of the rule imo. Calling it any other way in any game that mattered could possibly be a career altering move also imo.
3) More interest and discussion haven't been generated from that situation because I can't really think of too many officials, other than Nevada, that would ever even think of ignoring that particular lane touching. It's a no-brainer to most officials iow; just call the violation.