I've seen three threads recently come down to advantage/disadvantage. One was about three seconds (call when an advantage is gained) and one was about the T for making contact OOB. The third was about driving the lane with heavy contact.

I know in the soccer rule book, there is an allowance made for A/D. However, I don't see the same latitude in the basketball rule book.

I will admit to passing on the contact OOB technical with a few seconds left in a blowout when the winning team had the ball. It would have had no effect on the final outcome. However, I am not sure it is right to change the way I call penalties (3 seconds) or PC fouls as to whether it is advantageous for a team or not.

Now, if they rewrite the rule book, and make a signal for ADVANTAGE: PLAY ON, I'll enforce it. But if a coach is mad that I called a foul on the other team that 'stole' a layup from his team, I'm sorry! It was still a foul. I've got enough to think about getting all the calls right without trying to determine who gains an advantage by me making or kicking a call. Enforce the rule book, as written. That's why they wrote it. 'Nuff said.

RELEASE THE HOUNDS!!!!

[Edited by mplagrow on Feb 12th, 2004 at 06:53 AM]

The FIBA rulebook now has advantage/disadvantage as part of its fouls AND violations. NF and NCAA do not make it official, but refs use adv/disadv. in many instances and I believe that it's for the better in most cases.

Know what? I agree with you- to a degree. I think that some officials really get carried away with advantage/disadvantage, and try to apply it in situations where it was never meant to apply. Usually, A/D should apply only to deciding whether physical contact warranted a foul call, or not. In normal play, about the only violation that A/D should apply to is 3-seconds, imo. Note that I said "normal" play. I'm not talking about blowouts, etc. You never know when the violation that you chose to ignore might eventually come down to a missed possession by a losing team, that may well have won a 1 or 2 point game with that extra possession. If you ignore that violation, you sure aren't "disadvantaging" the team that committed it, but you are taking away a perfectly legal "advantage" or extra possession from the other team. The other major problem that I have with A/D is that I'm seeing inexperienced officials trying to apply the concept. They're usually at a stage in their development where all they should be worrying about is getting the basic fouls and violations right, and instead they're thinking about calls instead of just making them. I'm certainly not against A/D, but you gotta learn to walk before you can run.

As a new official I have viewed the advantage/disadvantage as a very subjective rule, which results in much inconsistancies. I have been watching experienced officials in an attempt to observe how they call, obviously using advantage/disadvantage and it hasn't taught me a thing. Its had enough with the "incidental contact" determination. (I agree with you Jurassic).

I am going to apologize for not staying up on the FIBA situation concerning advantage/disadvantage, but as far as the NFHS/NCAA rules are concerned advantage/disadvantage is to be applied to foul situations only and not to violation situations.

It is much easier to call a game without considering advantage/disadvantage. Part of what separates the wheat from the chaff is the ability to make such judgments consistently and fairly throughout a game.

You are absolutely wrong -- if a player passes a ball to a teammate and his arm gets clipped IT IS NOT A FOUL. It is an INcorrect call to make in that situation. Yet, it is easier to make the call becuase it required less patience and judgment. If you can hold the whistle and, if the pass isn't completed to a teammate, THEN call the foul, you've made a better decision.

All the places I've lived you simply don't make it to the varsity high school level without understanding and using ADV/DISADV to a certain degree.

De jure, maybe, but de facto?

If we applied the three second rule as written without considering adv/disadv, we'd call it 4-6 times a game. If you want to work lower level basketball for the rest of your life, you call a lot of these. Otherwise, you call what needs to be called, like Chuck's.

I've called this some this season, but ALWAYS when needed, like when a camper receives a pass or gets position because of the violation.

I have to agree. I am not calling 3 seconds and a player just has a foot in the lane and his teammates are making no attempt to get them the ball. And with all due respect to those that are not used to working varsity ball and above, there are not many times they hang out there. Most players in the paint are fighting for position and moving so much they are not in the lane that long at all anymore. Most players now do not want to play their back to the basket, like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar did back in the day. They usually like to play like Kevin Garnett if they are that tall and talented. I think when people talk about 3 seconds, it is really sometimes overblown. And it is not like any official that has any ability is really concentrating on where a player's foot is, when guys are screening and moving in a small area.

Peace

Hello to all,
I have been reading this forum with great interest for a while now. I am a middle school girls coach who has also officiated many sports at the HS/MS/rec level through the years. This is my first post on this forum.

This thread caught my eye because it seems that I have noticed officials who, when there is contact on a shot attempt, seem to delay blowing the whistle until they see if the shot was good. Only when they see it is not good do they make a call. I have seen this more and more recently and have always questioned it.

I would welcome your comments.

MisterV,

I delay the whistle on shots, when it is unclear how much contact was made. But I do not wait for the shot to go, I wait to see if the shot is affected by the contact. Or I wait to see if the shooter is prevented from following thru or finishing their move. Whether the shot goes in or not is not relevent to me and many other officials I know. It is the same reason I am not going to call a foul when a shooter is purposely attemping a "circus shot" in an effort to get a foul called in their favor.

Peace

In Wa state the last couple of years there has been directions from the state office that A/D is not a consideration, that a "foul is a foul". I find that next to impossible to adhere to personally. Maybe to say that a situation does not have a direct impact on a play would be a way to address it. A newer official (and some older ones) never understand the implications of A/D and the game they call usually reflects tat lack of understanding. There are situations where contact may not put a player in a A/D situation but to ignore the contact would not be the wise choice. The contact on the pass mentioned above if ignored because the pass was completed could, and often does, lead to a retalition foul. The problem with the A/D is as Mark indicated in that it was carries over to violation situations by many officials where it does not apply

I work over 600 games a year from youth to adults,where every player played college or pro ball,and I can not recall one time that a player retaliated after they got hit
on the arm during a pass.

I've had players ask why I did not call a foul and I've had them ask why I had a late whistle after their team stole the ball,but I've NEVER had one player go head hunting.

mplagrow,

Please read the section in the NFHS rulebook called "the intent and purpose of the rules" on page 9.

I'll quote a bit from it: "it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be <b>intelligently </b>applied."

The 3-second rule was put in to prevent players from gaining a big advantage by camping in the key (was it Kareem's dominance or maybe Wilt's dominance that led to that rule?). The rule book gives officials that authority to call it, even if only one foot is in the lane (documentation has to be precise). However, do you really think it is in the "spirit and intent" of the rules to call "3 seconds" on a player who is in the key without gaining any advantage?

IMHO, those officials who call "3-in-the-key" every time they see it are failing to apply that rule intelligently.

Z

I think the A/D is a tricky situation just because it is not going to be understood by a lot of players and fans. The situation about the pass, A1 passes to A2, B1 contacts him on the arm, the pass strays a little but A1 completes the pass, so no call. Now, other end of the floor, B1 passes to B2, A1 contacts B1 on the arm pretty much the same as b1 hit him, the pass stays a little and B2 doesn't catch, foul on A1. Now A1 is going to be thinking, he just did the same thing to me on the other end of the floor and didn't get called for it.

It may be the right thing to do using the A/D principle, but it looks inconsistant.

Why I don't like 3 seconds...
 

The reason I hate (and I mean hate) three seconds is because this is the violation that once you call, you have to be the most consistent on. Likewise, you'll have the coaches breathing down your neck about it.

If there's no advantage, I don't call it. I don't even like it when there IS an advantage. It's a fair advantage...so they have a tall guy, big deal! Are we supposed to restrict the three point line to 3 seconds for the hot-shot shooter? No...

I agree with Chuck, I just don't like three seconds. However, it's in the rule book, so it's just one of those things I have to suck up. However, usually, a courtesy "watch three seconds" will do the job...