[BillyMac]

Continued from previous thread, Part I

From TOWER PHILOSOPHY:ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Paul “Jacky” Loube, Executive Director, The International Association of Approved Basketball Officials

I remember the very first time I was asked to make a presentation at an IAABO Interpreters Seminar. My topic that morning was the “Tower Philosophy” and its impact on different levels of basketball. I really didn’t know where to begin so I attempted to research the impact that the “Tower Philosophy” had on the game by interviewing coaches and officials. I was amazed by the many different interpretations of the philosophy and the cavalier approach veterans had when explaining the philosophy to me. I found that officials working youth basketball while exercising the Tower Philosophy gave a great deal of latitude to players at that level, while those at progressively higher levels gave less leeway. My concern was that this implementation should have been reversed. Should not younger players first have an understanding of what actions are within the limits of the rules? Is not a travel a travel? In today’s basketball, however, young officials begin early to make their own determination as to what is within the “spirit and intent” of the rules.

SOUND RULES FOUNDATION
The more I observe the training of applicants who want to become officials, the more convinced I become that the concept of advantage-disadvantage should remain a “foreign language” until a sound rules foundation has been realized and processed by the official. Officials should be absolutely certain and well versed on the description and explanation of each foul and violation. A strictly literal approach should be taken. Only then, armed with an initial literal knowledge of all the elements of the rules, will they be able to make rulings on the realistic philosophy of advantage disadvantage. It is true that all the great officials have put the Tower Philosophy into practice but that skill doesn’t develop overnight.

A well-officiated game is one wherein the official has adhered to the spirit and intent of the rules as established,in FIBA competition, by the World Technical Commission. The basic and fundamental responsibility of each official is to ensure the game proceeds with as little interference as possible by the officiating team. This is not to say that an official should not blow the whistle when a rule has been breached. The intention should rather be to avoid calling infractions that do not contravene the spirit and intent of the rules.

DR. JOHN BUNN
Over 50 years ago, Dr. John Bunn, IAABO Interpreter and editor of the NCAA Rules, introduced what was called the “Oswald Tower Philosophy,” named for his friend and fellow IAABO Interpreter, Oswald Tower. The philosophy best represented what the Basketball Rules Committee believed and supported regarding the officiating of a contest. The same philosophy is embraced by FIBA through its World Technical Commission.

This philosophy represents a realistic approach that would guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not an infraction has
occurred. As an illustration, if A1 sets a legal screen on B1 and B1 generates notable contact with A1, should play stop and a foul be called on B1? What about A2, who executed the play just as the coach designed it, used the legal screen and has broken free for an easy lay-up? If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular situation and officiated literally, team A would be penalized and the game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A veteran official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited but in other aspects of the game as well, must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent, then realistically speaking, no rules violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

TOWER PHILOSOPHY STATED ANOTHER WAY
The “Tower Philosophy” stated in another manner is as follows: if players are unfairly affected as a result of an infraction of the rules, then the player not in compliance must be penalized, but if there has been no appreciable
effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be stopped. The action should be ignored. The official must determine immediately if the contact is incidental. For example, the crowd is screaming for an “over the back foul” on B1 when the ball is hit out of bounds but realistically and practically, no infraction has occurred.

PLAY SITUATIONS
Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are chosen to officiate basketball games because game organizers believe those officials have basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevail in the game today. Better officials exercise mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. The FIBA office is consistently bombarded with issues concerning trivial and unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted on minor technicalities that are of little or no significance. At countless rules clinics around the world, there are those who sidetrack the “fundamental” discussions far too often and get involved with emotional debates over situations that might occur once in a lifetime.

In many instances, these very same officials have no faith in the value of judgment, and more times than not, lack basic game management skills. Some would call them “excessive whistle blowers” or “interferers”, an affront to the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny point, rather than rely on judgment and common sense. At the higher levels of competition, educators and commissioners are looking for the official with an advantage-disadvantage and humanistic approach to officiating. Did the player violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule? Below are some guidelines that must be adhered to by officials, coaches, and players for the game to be well officiated.

A veteran official must possess a knowledge of the rules and mechanics when officiating each and every game. Expressions such as, “We’ll only switch on fouls resulting in free throws,” creates hesitancy and indecisiveness and is never an ingredient of a competent officiating package. Competent and dedicated officials exude a floor presence and physical condition that is commensurate with the demands of a basketball game. They have sound judgment and cooperate with fellow officials, exercise an air of calmness and confidence and are consistent with their calls. When an official has these qualifications and uses them within the framework
of advantage-disadvantage, the game will be well officiated and well served.

LEVEL OF OFFICIATING
Finally, the quality of the game of basketball will never be any better than its level of officiating. The well-officiated contest will have had the play situations judged on the doctrine and principles of advantage-disadvantage. Sadly, those who lack the basic understanding of these principles often rely on the Tower Philosophy as an excuse for not making a call. They miss the reality that the spirit and intent of the Tower Philosophy is the basis for making a sound and consistent judgment, one that is used in deciding to blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle, but never to ignore an obvious infraction.

Was the game played and consistently officiated under the basic philosophy that a ruling should be made if one team gained an advantage (or was placed at a disadvantage) that was not intended within the spirit and intent of the rule? If so, it was a well officiated game.

Mr. DeNucci: Where, in all these sources, or in sources that you can come up with, do you find, in writing, a differentiation between fouls and violations, enough to give strong evidence to your quote that "Advantage/disadvantage does NOT ever apply to violations"? I believe that you and I probably agree on 99% of this issue. I believe that Spirit and Intent of the Rules and the Tower Philsophy, in almost all cases, refer to contact situations, as in Rule 4-27, "Incidental Contact", but your words are a "blanket statement" that don't seem to be supported by anything in writing that I've ever seen in my 26 years of NFHS officiating. Maybe it's a local or state philosophy in your area, supported by your state or local interpreter, but, in my humble opinion, not supported by the NFHS.

Finally, From 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. My point all along was that you just couldn't try to apply advantage/disadvantage indiscriminately to violations. Most violations must be called."