Kinda. I hate the type of contact not called during made free throws. Indeed, no "physical" advantage is gained but so often the player fouled will still get upset. He/She may look at the ref and mutter something or, simply "remember" the player that fouled them and consider retaliation. To me, if my opponent gets upset/disgruntled toward me as a player or ref, then I have indeed gained a "mental" advantage.

Just a thought...

We don't officiate mental advantages. Some people just have thinner skin. Not our problem. Sounds like the kid needs some mental jiujitsu here.

Are we not calling some fouls because of them happening during a free throw?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

If it doesn't create an advantage, is it a foul by rule?

Yes.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

"A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements."

On a made free throw, there aren't many offensive or defensive movements which you can hinder. If you want to call minor contact that leads to no advantage, be my guest. But any camp I've ever been to would ding you for not having a more patient whistle and charging a "nothing" foul. You're better off calling the severe contact that makes everyone in the gym go "WHOA" and leaving the game interrupters like this alone.

And yes, it is possible to do that and still be within the spirit and intent of the rules.

I'm not saying call "ticky tack" fouls that aren't necessary. But not calling a foul simply because of there being no clear advantage (the words "advantage" and "disadvantage" do not appear in the definition of "foul" under rule 4, nor under illegal contact under rule 10-6) is wrong.

You, yourself, said the words "by rule", yet reverted to what you were told in camps. Yes, camps are a great source for us, but again... You said "by rule".

We're not robots, nor should we be, so I understand what you and others are saying. I'm just clarifying that advantage/disadvantage is not in the rules.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Advantage/disadvantage may not be explicated spelled out in the rule book, but on this play is it most definitely in the minds of supervisors and observers. Being an official who blows his whistle on these type of plays will adversely affect the perception observers/supervisors have of that official.

You don't think "hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" implies advantage/disadvantage just because those words aren't actually used?

There's some section in the beginning of the NFHS rule book that talks about intelligently applying the rules according to their intent and spirit. This is one of those cases.

I have seen this enough that I either tell him to knock it off, call the foul, or watch him like a hawk and get something 50/50 and put it on him. Because the look from the guy who got hit is nasty. Normally he appreciates me tell him off right on the spot and it stops. If I have already had any talk with this game wrecker there is even a better chance he will get a foul.

We don't? So do you allow unlimited trash talk? Do you allow any sort of verbal threats because no physical advantage was gained?

I can see it now...A1 at the FT line and B2 walks near him before shooting calling him, loudly, every name in the book, making comments about his religion/ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation and promising to meet him in the parking lot after the game if he makes it. Team A coach inquires and you say "There was no physical advantage gained and A1 needs mental jujitsu." Should go over well.

I know, I know, to extreme. Forgive me.

I pointed out that calling a foul simply because of whether an advantage was gained is wrong.

In the case presented by the OP, while the advantage/disadvantage thing could certainly play a part in how the official applies the foul rule, it is not the only thing that should be considered.

Did the defender give a small push, that would have given him an advantage had the FT missed and a rebound was possible for his opponent w/o having been pushed? I can see letting that go.

Did the defender push his opponent hard enough that everybody in the building could see it? Not hard enough to warrant a flagrant foul, but something that we don't want to let go. In that case the lack of any advantage would likely not keep you from calling a foul.

Again... advantage/disadvantage, in and of itself, is not a reason to pass on a foul call. Nobody pointed that out and just agreed with advantage/disadvantage thing, and I decided to say something. I wasn't disagreeing and saying we should be robots when it comes to applying the rules, just adding clarification.

The flaw in your argument, is that trash talking and yelling during free throws are explicitly called out in the rule book. What the rule book doesn't address is calling a foul because that foul "may" create an issue on the other end of the court.

Advantage/disadvantage has almost gone the way of the dinosaur. The current application is to apply the rules as written, and promote freedom of movement.

As more and more contact is specifically called out as infractions the onus goes away from "judgement" and to just call the contact a foul.

This, of course, does apply moreso at the college level, however HS can benefit quite a bit from this too.

Advantage/Disadvantage ...
 

We're not quite there yet, but the asteroid is on it's way.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...bd6c054b7f.jpg

farside....top 3 cartoon strips of all time (calvin and hobbes and dilbert are the other 2). Yes I am very well read in these 3 and I knew this panel halfway into it :).