OK, I admit to stirring the pot a little, but my real aim is to get some views about why we call some things and pass on some others, especially when it comes to fouls.

I read a lot of posts here that will say something like "I didn't call that contact because no advantage was gained". Based on that reasoning, there would be no foul called on a shot when a basket is made, because the offense was not put at a disadvantage.

Sure, A/D has a place, but do some of us rely too heavily on trying to judge every play based on that? How do others determine what to whistle?

Hartsy

You have a good question and make a good point. I don't think many people rely on it for every play. For instance, a crash isn't really a A/D call. A 3-point shooter getting hit on the arm while attempting a shot isn't an A/D call to me either. A hand check on a dribbler could be an A/D call or a drive to the basket could be an A/D call or a pass. Now that I think about it, A/D is a small part of what calls are made and what calls aren't made. It is more about seeing the whole play while on ball and just seeing the play while off ball. Some people call according to the style in there area. I was told last summer that some calls would just be "game interrupters" and leave them alone. If the person with the power to assign says this to you the smart thing to do is fall in line. I'm sure others will chime in here with some words.

I try to use my judgement to not call a ticky-tack foul when the ball handler still has the opportunity to make it to the hoop and score. This concept can also be used when a team keeps control (or gets control) despite the "foul." I think that is where referees think about A/D. There is something to be said about flow of the game for small interruptions. This is also determined by the age of the players and their skill ability (or inability).

I once officiatied a (lower level) girls varsity game with a guy who called every single thing strictly by the book. We were in double bonus early in each half (we play halves in Massachusetts). This was an extreme example of a referee with no feel for the game flow (it never got a flow). He could have been a robot programmed to call something everytime there was ANY body contact (after all, this IS a non-contact sport, right?). This was years ago, and this "robot, strictly-by-the-book" style still has left a (bad) impression on me.

An excellent official knows the happy medium between calling strictly by the book and letting a game become a disaster by allowing rough play and not blowing the whistle enough. A/D sometimes needs to be considered, IMO.

As a parent (and a stickler for sporting rules, in general), I would rather see a closely called game.

If my child was playing, and the refs let the game get rough, I would be none too happy if my child (or any child for that matter) got hurt. Rough play is only a part of the game if the officials let it become part of the game.

As a stickler for the rules, I think calling closely is good for the game, because it inevitably forces the player to develop solid basketball skills.

advantage lost
 

The hoop and the harm play is not an A/D play. The shoot or the dribbler driving to the hoop is often protected better than other players. The shooting foul is called before the official knows whether basket is good.

There is also a difference between girls vs. boys. The girl players is often disrupted by a simple foul whereas a boy maybe able to athletically muscle through it and MAINTAIN HIS ADVANTAGE. This is often when a foul is not called - rather than end the play, the dribbler, offensive player is allowed to continue through the initial foul and score, make the pass, receive a pass... etc.

It is in the rulebook.
 

I really do not see how anyone can officiate a basketball game without the concept of advantage/disadvantage. The exact words are not used, but the concept is completely under the rulebook under 4-27. All contact is not a foul and should not be judged a foul even if that contact is severe. Guys talk about calling the game under the rules, well that is the rule.

For the most part this goes along with the players I am officiating. If players can handle contact and still function normally, I am not going to just blow my whistle just because a defender touched someone. If a player cannot handle that kind of contact and gets knocked off balance quite easily, then I might have a foul.

I live by that to determine fouls. And people seem to think I have really good judgment as a result. I can only attribute that to my philosophy of advantage/disadvantage. That does not mean every call I make is going to be right or the best call, but I try my best to follow this concept to the letter.

Peace

This is an incorrect view of A/D, IMO. If contact occurs that makes the shot more difficult, an advantage has been gained regardless of whether the shot goes in. If contact occurs that had no effect on the difficulty of the shot, then there is no advantage.

IMO, Advantage/Disadvantage is the only way to determine whether contact is incidental or not.

It has been said before but I am not sure how you cannot call a game with A/D. I just do not see what you are trying to say.

Here is the basis
 

Barry posted this here quite awhile back ... I kept a copy. You should too.

From Barry C Morris off of the Officiating.com Forum

I found the document that I thought was "The Tower Philosophy". It came from an officiating clinic I attended about five years ago. Apparently, though, "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. I don't know the author of the document (though, it was apparently a Rules Editor) nor when it was written but I reproduce an excerpt here for your review:

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 attention 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 following observations, which are not new to the older and well-established official, are worth restating even though they have been stated exceptionally well by the Editor's predecessors, Mr. John Bunn and Mr. Oswald Tower, on many occasions:

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 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 to officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"
__________________
Never explain. Your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway.

I agree with almost everything here, however, I think you need to crank the "intimidation factor" in when a shooter, takes a shot; no impact on the shot itself; but the shooter gets "crunched" by the defender after the shot is away, the shooter may be some what timid in taking his next shot, so the A/D is not immediate, but kind of like a little something in the bank.

But I do agree Advantage/Disadvantage is the only way to determine whether contact is incidental or not.

If shooter gets "crunched" assess an Intentional Foul or a Flagrant Intentional Foul (ejection). You will squelch that advantage in a hurry.

BTW, the shot doesn't have to be affected to have an advantage from the contact. If the shooter is sufficiently displaced after the shot, there would be an advantage as well. A shooter getting "crunched" implies, to me, that they have been knocked to the floor. To me, if the offended party gets knocked to the floor, it's a foul (assuming one person is guilty of initiating the contact.)

And maybe it isn't a disadvantage on the (already released) shot, but it sure means that the fouled player can't follow his own shot.

Rich, exactly, or get back on defense as quickly.

A/D is tough. But in certain situations, you have to use it.

Rebounding, defensive player gets rebound and is not displaced by the foul. No Call.

Dribbler beats pressing defender while getting fouled but maintains control. No Call.

When a player is displaced or loses possession of the ball you have to call the foul.

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.

<b>
Well if we start calling every contact as a foul because we're worried that players might start being intimidated that they might be contacted...... yikes.

I think you just made my point for me that we call some contact as a foul even if it doesn't disadvantage a player. There are more reasons to call fouls than just adv/dis. The exact same contact in one game that is called a foul might not be called as a foul in another game.

Adv/dis isn't the only reason we call fouls.

Z
</b>

I hear ya kenna...

But in that other thread you made reference to a midcourt foul committed on a breakaway. You would not have known if the dribbler was hindered in that situation until he made it all the way to the basket and scores (using your criteria). My point was that if there is illegal contact you need to make that call as opposed to incidental contact.

Oh yeah, if you felt lambasted, I apologize for any ill-will generated by my words as I never mean to be offensive. :)