|
|||
Re: Keep wondering - Here is the information you requested.
Quote:
"The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the rules committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn. Rules Philosophy and Principles "As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the atttention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach. The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule. Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed: 'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.' It represents a realistic approach to 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 a rule violation has occurred. As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game 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 rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules. The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows: 'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.' The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority are those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?" |
|
|||
Good job, mick!
BTW, I made post in the other thread that you'll probably want to delete. Sorry but I couldn't help myself. It's kinda cute!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
The last paragraph.............
is the reason I say it is a bad thing to be a "rulebook official." It is great to know the rules, but some rules are not as important as others. And if you try to apply them to the letter, you will get yourself in trouble.
Great post Mick!! Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Barnes cost his team with uncontrollable outburst
Texas was only down 3 and what if the guy would have missed both free throws? Barnes was out of control most of that second half. Players will react the way their coaches do. You didn't Xavier whining did you? No they played. Barnes should have closed his mouth then he wouldn't have gotten a T. Barnes behaves the way Jim Boeheim used to. Notice Boeheim doesn't do that anymore?
|
|
|||
Well, three or four of you have run your mouths
but no one has answered my question.
Let me make it simpler for you. Who has authority to issue an order to officials contradicting the rules of the game? Have they done so? Where is the written order? A referees' association or training camp, so far as I know have no authority to change the rules. Thus, when an official sees contact that's a fould, right? Under the rules of basketball is contact a foul or not a foul? These are easy fellas. Please answer these questions directly. Your ad hominem attacks are unseemly among junior high students. Coming from responsible, adult sports officials they indicate that you resort to being a smart mouth in the adsence of the anwer. I am not now an official but was one for a short time years ago. I am not a coach but have been. I am not any longer a player except if you dare call my golf game "playing". |
|
||||||||
Let us make is simpler for you.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace [Edited by JRutledge on Mar 28th, 2004 at 03:05 PM]
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
YOu belittle me and make your jokes
but you don't answer the question.
Show where in the rule book it says that certian kinds of contact in games is not a foul. Here's what is happening. Humans make mistakes. All of us do, referees included. Nothing happens to referees who make mistakes. Nothing is ever said publicly to enable the folks who pay the money to make the games occur and result in employment for officials, can ever know if refs were discipline or even corrected for their mistakes. They see you guys noting and sanctioning the players and coaches mistakes. they even see you correct time keepers and scoreboard operators mistakes. But, no one ever even know IF anyone noticed your mistakes. I guarantee that in a game between two fairly closely matched teams, I could, quite surepticiously determine the outcome 100% of the time if I was an offical who wanted to do that. If I became suspect, I'd just say, "Hey, I might have missed a couple there." I further guarantee you that human nature makes SOME of us weak enough to try to do that sometimes. Referees, being human, too, are among 'some of us'. They don't do the background checks on the NCAA refs for no reason, folks. They do it because they suspected the possibility of gamblers buying outcomes from referees. Now, if the game is to be sustained, we have to remove ALL DOUBT that this knind of thing could happen. How? Call the rule book exactly as written - no exceptions, not points of emphasis, not advice from referees associations except to teach the black letter rules rules from the book and every official call every violation every time. How does that help? It removes all discretion from referees. It makes their assessment much easier. I believe the rule book indicates that contact is a foul. Call all contact a foul. The players will figure it out pretty quickly. The game will eturn to one of speed, skill and finesse instead of the wrestling match it has become. And for you folks the best thing will occur. No one will ever saw again in a close game - "on three straight possessions there was contact on (name a team) that the covering official saw but 'passed on'." My point is this. No one gave that official the authority to "pass on it". He did that in contravention of the rules and it gave an advantage to one team over the other. IF he was trying to effect an outcome (and I have no reason to think he was), nothing more than that might have done it. That's why it has to be eliminated. |
|
||||||||||||||
I admit I am having some fun.....
but I am not belitting you.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Re: YOu belittle me and make your jokes
Quote:
Show me where it says in the rule book that ANY kind of contact is a foul. I'll wait until you get yourself a rule book.
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg |
|
|||
I know that this has already been handled, but I just have to add my 2. You say you want officials to follow the "black and white" rulebook completely. The problem is that the rulebook, in effect, says use your best judgement about what constitutes a foul (ie the rulebook isn't "black and white") It gives examples of situations that should or should not result in a call, but it couldn't possibly describe a foul in "black and white". That is why we must rely on intelligent humans who have experience and common sense who can use their own judgement to call fouls. If the officials judgement is consistemtly found to be suspect then they will be replaced by whoever hires them.
|
|
||||
Re: Well, three or four of you have run your mouths
Quote:
(Hint - the rules specifically state that not all contact is a foul!) Quote:
Hello, kettle? You there? This is the pot . . . . Quote:
Maybe the rules have changed. What levels did you work? For how long? When? Quote:
__________________
"To win the game is great. To play the game is greater. But to love the game is the greatest of all." |
|
|||
Can we close this? The questions have been answered several times and the answers ignored. If this guy asked if the sky was blue and someone answered yes, he'd have a 750-word post questioning the answer. To complete the adage, this guy has opened his mouth and removed all doubt.
__________________
Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out. -- John Wooden |
Bookmarks |
|
|