Some coaches will argue that the A/D concept goes against some of the things they are trying to teach their players like: taking a charge, boxing out, etc.

When illegal contact is passed on by the officials, a team may be disadvantaged by not being allowed to achieve a bonus situation. Free throws are a very integral part of the game for many teams.

A/D is a very difficult judgement to make on many calls simply because of the unknown outcome that occurs when we do call it tight or if we pass and the bonus is not gained. I think the concept of A/D is a compelling component of the game as it brings the human element to the officials.

However, this judgement can be very powerful and every effort should be made to master the skills for applying it correctly.

However, this judgement can be very powerful and every effort should be made to master the skills for applying it correctly. [/B][/QUOTE]

To apply the concept of A/D correctly you need to do as many games as possible at different skill levels. As an example when I first started officiating I would have called an "over the back" even though the "the right player" secured the rebound with no problem. I also may have called a "hack" even if the dribbler was not affected and the call cost him/her an easy lay-up. Now I would pass or more rightly consider the contact incidental. Sometimes it's unavoidable but it can get frustrating if every time up the floor there's a whistle. Just my opinion.

The intent of the penalties is not to grant a team free throws, it is to discourage breaking the rules (fouling). I don't buy the argument that "it goes against what they are teaching" at all. That's meaningless to me.
If the contact doesn't create some sort of advantage, (displacement, impediment, etc.) there's no foul. I'm not taking anything away by not calling it because there was nothing to call.

There's a difference between rough play no good official will tolerate that and the concept of advantage/disadvantage where yes there is contact but it is considered incidental and not disrupting the flow of the game. Incidentally there can be violent contact with no call. For example a long pass where both opponents try to catch the ball at the same time. Any time you have 10 players running in a confined you can have violent collsions with neither individual to blame.

Meaningless?

Quite the opposite. There is much strategy involving the foul count and FT's that encourages a player to try and commit or avoid fouls depending on the situation at hand. Sure FT's may be designed as a deterrent to fouling but if the FT is not the intent of the penalty then why do we allow 5 fouls before DQ?

My point is that the coach's comments here aren't worth much. If the contact isn't a foul, it's not a foul. Period. If I didn't think it was a foul, then appeals to "I'm trying to teach my kids what a foul is" will fall on deaf ears. Obviously, the intent of the penalty is the FT, and that factors into strategy.
My main point stands. If there's incidental contact, the coach has no basis for this argument here. I really couldn't care less which rules he's teaching his kids.

If there's no contact, there's no foul. If there's lots of contact, it's a foul. It's the little contact plays that take A/D. I'm still working on this myself, but I do know that you don't pass on the hard ones unless it's really obvious that you're taking away a clear path to the basket. You also don't call anything regardless of the intention (except a fight) if there's no contact. It's the half-way things that require judgment. The dribbler is moving sideways, east to west, looking for an inlet pass. Defender stays within a foot and between the dribbler and the basket. Dribbler suddenly speeds up and tries to drive around. Defender reaches to maintain position, dribbler trips on defenders foot, but doesn't fall, or lose the ball. If she fell, or lost the ball, you'd call it. There's no judgment needed. Once she hits the deck, even if a teammate scoops up the ball and makes an easy lay-in, the ball is already dead. But in the case of the little stumble, only the ref there at that time can tell you whether to call that or not. You can't wait too long like you could in soccer, but a little delay is okay. See the whole play, and judge the advantage or disadvantage.

Rainmaker makes a very good point. I'm seeing too many people moving towards a soccer A/D mentality. I ref soccer, too. They're waiting too long or letting fouls go for an advantage. I'm not talking about the ticky tack stuff.

I had a funny one last night. A1 caught the ball near the sideline, facing onto the court, defender starts cuddling closer and closer, A1 was turning up court, but just as she started to put the ball down for the dribble, B1 gives a little bump, A1 started to stumble, one step and a dribble, then another off balance step and another wild dribble. After about three, she stepped out of bounds. I blew the whistle. This was all right in front of Coach B. He looked at me in astonishment when I blew because the last step had absolutely no contact. I said, "Late whistle."

I waited too long, but Red was way up on fouls, and I wanted to spare them if possible. It was a good solid bump, though.

I stayed out of this thread for a while b/c I really didn't know what to think about some of the posts. But after looking through it again, I think I have to pipe up. The original post asks if some of us rely too heavily on the concept of advantage/disadvantage. Another post says "A/D is tough, but sometimes you have to use it." In other threads recently, I've read things like, "Contact is a foul. Call it by the book."

Folks, in contact situations, you can't rely too heavily on advantage/disadvantage. You don't "have to use it" sometimes, you have to use it all the time. Why? Because unlike some people's views, contact is not a foul. If you're really calling it by the book, then you are using advantage/disadvantage. Read the definition of "Foul" (FED 4-19-1, includes the phrase "contact. . .which hinders an opponent. . .") or the definition of "Incidental Contact" (FED 4-27-1, "contact. . .which is permitted and is not a foul; NCAA 4-38-1, "contact shall not constitute a foul" or 4-38-3, "contact that does not hinder the opponent. . .".)

The very definitions of "foul" and "incidental contact" rely on the concept of advantage/disadvantage. This does not mean that we just let stuff go for some reason, and allow a contest to devolve into a rock fight. What it does mean is that you watch the whole play and decide if either player was placed at an unfair disadvantage by any contact.

If you simply call a foul on every noticeable bit of contact, you will have no players left to finish the game. (To be honest, it might be kinda cool to see the last two players in a game each get their 5th foul on a blarge :) )

Advantage/disadvantage is the heart of basketball officiating. Understand it and apply it properly and your games will be much smoother and better for it. Disregard it and you will be doing 5th/6th rec leagues exclusively for your entire career, b/c no one will trust you with a HS game.

Chuck,

Nice post. I agree with it except for one tiny piece. Your sentence which reads, "What it does mean is that you watch the whole play and decide if either player was placed at an unfair disadvantage by any contact" is missing one tiny piece. I'll give a couple examples:

A1 goes up for a shot and gets bumped pretty hard by B1. Shot goes in. Referee calls a foul and counts the bucket. We'll shoot one. Was A1 disadvantaged by the contact? Probably not since he made the hoop. Is it a foul? Yep, we see lots of "and one" calls at all levels.

A1 gets a rebound and B1 lands on his back. A1 is able to maintain his balance. Referee calls a foul? Was A1 disadvantaged by the contact? No. Is it a foul? Yes, because if you don't call that foul your game could become rougher and rougher. Frustration may ensue leading to more and more contact. We all know that rough play is a POE.

So I understand your point and I agree, but there are also fouls that we correctly call which by definition do not put a player at a disadvantage. These "non-disadvantage fouls" need to be made for game management.

Z

Zebraman:
I disagree. I see clear advantages here on both of your plays. First of all, if A1's shot is made more difficult by B1's contact, then you have an advantage regardless of whether the shot goes in.
Secondly, If A1 has to carry B1, I'd say he's disadvantaged.

Adam

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Unless they were brothers then he might not be so heavy.

Robmoz,

Looks like Chucks post above is exactly the point I was trying to make with the sitch I described in the "Coach takes a charge post" that you lambasted me for.

I'm glad I am not alone in what I thought adv/disadv to be. In my post, the impression I tried to make was that the dribbler was not hindered in any way.

There are other disadvantages other than the shot not going in. If a B player is allowed to contact the airborne shooter without penalty, the A players could be intimidated by the fact that they KNOW that they can't leave themselves vulnerable as an airborne shooter. THAT'S a disadvantage. We need to protect our airborne shooters, provided they aren't contacting someon with LGP.