http://www.ccboa.org/articles/advant...antage0804.htm

Advantage/Disadvantage:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you have all heard a coach or a fan say something to the effect of " I thought basketball was supposed to be a non-contact sport!" This tired old line usually comes when their team is getting waxed and a player from their team gets clocked with a perfectly legal screen. As you are well aware from officiating, basketball is very much a contact sport and we have been given the authority to determine if the contact that occurs throughout the course of a game constitutes a foul or not. It is clear that not all contact by opponents against each other is a foul. What shapes your judgment to make that determination? This article will discuss several items that an official needs to think about regarding contact on the floor and determining whether or not the contact constitutes a foul or is to be considered incidental contact.

In order to be a good official, one must not only know the rules and mechanics but must have an understanding of the "spirit and intent" of the rules before trying to apply them. We cannot officiate any game by the book. By that I mean, we cannot bring a strict interpretation of the rulebook to the floor and expect anyone to be happy with our performance. Also a good official understands the concept of "advantage/disadvantage" when making any ruling regarding contact. Rule 4, Section 27 makes is very clear that there is a lot of contact in the game of basketball that must be considered "incidental contact" and is not to be considered a foul. This rule states in part .."The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur." It further says, "contact which does not hinder the movement of the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental". This rule outlines the advantage/disadvantage concept as has been preached for years. Officials are paid to make judgments! Anyone can blow a whistle and call a foul if an opponent makes contact with another, but a good official can see the contact and make an immediate judgment as to whether or not the contact caused the receiving party to be put at a disadvantage. If so, call a foul, if not, let it go. Remember a "No Call" is often times the "Right Call."

A concept known as the "Tower Philosophy" sets the basis for using good judgment when officiating. In part the Tower Philosophy is as follows: " It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his/her opponent and a disadvantage. 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 the rules then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect on the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored, as it is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred." This provides all officials with a great foundation from which to build our own officiating style and philosophy.

I would like to point out a couple of areas where I feel we tend to call too many fouls rather than following the "Tower Philosophy" One of the areas is the over the back contact on rebounds. I think many of us have made that call and then wondered to ourselves why in the devil we blew the whistle. The player had inside position, got the rebound and landed soundly while getting ready for an outlet pass, and we call a foul because an opponent also trying to get the rebound bumped him from behind. There is no dispute about contact occurring, however the judgment having to be made by the official is, was the player put at a disadvantage by the contact.

Another area where I have seen a lot of fouls called when, in my opinion, a no call was the proper call is a bump by a defender on the dribbler in the backcourt or mid-court areas. I am not saying to let all of this contact go, but for the official to take a split second to determine if the contact put the dribbler at a disadvantage. Who is really being penalized if we call a foul on a bump when the offensive player is already past the defender and has a clear lane to the basket?

In the games that I have observed our newer officials, the area of judging contact is where I see the greatest variance in abilities. Some officials call everything, others call very little and there are those who are getting a good grasp of using the proper judgment when calling a game. Use of the Tower Philosophy during all games that you officiate will result in you being more consistent with your calls, which will help you become a better official.

get 'em JR
 

Sorry, but you are not correctly applying the advantage/disadvantage concept, you are advocating misapplying the rules of basketball, and JR duly admonished you for holding this position.

You cannot BY RULE do what you write above because the ball is DEAD at the time of the violation, unless A1 has already started the trying motion. Therefore, you can't wait for A1 to shoot. Put simply, the problem is that the goal doesn't count if the violation precedes the try, NO MATTER WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO BLOW THE WHISTLE.

If A1 has started the trying motion you could blow the whistle for B1's violation and award the ball OOB to Team A whether the try is successful or not, just as if B1 had fouled A2.

IOW the advantage/disadvantage concept must be applied within the rules, not used as a means to circumvent them and apply your own personal standard of justice.

PS IMO no official who practices your advice is going to stick around very long at any level, especially the higher ones.

The Tower Philosophy assumes two competitors who are making honest yet vigorously opposing attempts to play the game within the rules. It has little application in a situation where one competitor is wilfully violating the rules in an attempt to gain an unintended advantage over the other. At that point you've clearly moved beyond advantage/disadvantage and into a kind of damage control mode where whether or not you make the call is based on not letting one team use you to screw the other.

If there's a God, Nevada, then He's gonna let me be present when the defender who went OOB in this play subsequently comes back in and fouls A1 on the shot. :D

What's your call on that one, Johnny?

Call the delayed violation? I wanna be there when you try to explain to the coach of the shooting team why he now isn't gonna get his 2 free throws. What's your explanation to him gonna be as to why you didn't blow your whistle when the violation occurred?

Call the foul? I wanna be there when you try to explain to the coach of the defensive team why his team is now getting charged with a foul and his opponents are getting 2 free throws when the <b>correct</b> call woulda only have been a violation. What's your explanation to him gonna be as to why you didn't blow your whistle when the violation occured?

We don't know yet how the FED is gonna tell us to treat defensive violations of this rule. We should find out before the season starts, but until then all we can do is speculate- which is what we are doing in this thread. Speculation is fine, but that still doesn't change my opinion that delaying your whistle from <b>one</b> call to another <b>completely different</b> call is ever a good idea. It sureashell ain't imo.

Hold your whistle while A1 finishes getting in position, takes a pass, goes up with a shot from the corner and then misses that shot? And then possibly make a call that has absolutely <b>nothing</b> to do with <b>that</b> sequence but is applicable to a play that happened before it? I repeat, that's just terrible advice imo, Johnny.

Re: get 'em JR
 

IMO, you're lying to yourself and me by writing you call every single violation and foul that occurs. If you do, your games are lasting many hours and you are not using good game management.

You might be that official who writes the correct words for others to read but performs by calling out of ones area, making phantom calls and or makes a call on the whim without seeing the WHOLE PLAY.

I would bet by observing your game, I could point out many plays that you should have called or not have called or made an incorrect ruling.

At the higher levels they will use a similar yet more prevalent philosophy for game awareness and managing the game.

Whatever you want to imagine, making yourself feel like the god of officiating. You seem to stretch the facts to support your concept. You’re using scenarios that I never wrote nor implied in my post.

You can choose to use your philosophy by always blowing your whistle at the very instant you see a foul or violation.

You might have the remembrance to all rules and regulations of NFHS basketball but IMO, based on your written words; you’re not a very good official.

So some HS association in N. California is the pinnacle of basketball officiating knowledge?

When they use announcerspeak like over the back, they have nothing to offer.

Zip, nada, zero.

Any philosophy taken to the extreme and taken in absolutes is dangerous.

So your opinion makes you a good official, and disagreeing with it makes you a bad one?

Well....

I'd work with Nevadaref and JR, on their death beds, putting their last breath into the whistle, making the right call, before I'd work with the likes of you.

The word clueless comes to mind.:rolleyes:

Whatever you want to imagine, making yourself feel like the god of officiating. You seem to stretch the facts to support your concept. You’re using scenarios that I never wrote nor implied in my post.

You can choose to use your philosophy by always blowing your whistle at the very instant you see a foul or violation.

You might have the remembrance to all rules and regulations of NFHS basketball but IMO, based on your written words;<font color = red> you’re not a very good official</font>.
[/B][/QUOTE]I guess that you don't feel like answering those questions, right, Johnny? Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me.

What may surprise you is that I possibly might just happen to understand the value of a delayed whistle on a play. And you also may be surprised that I most certainly do agree with and advocate that concept. And, seriously, I read the Tower Concept before you even dreamed of becoming an official. However, to recommend delaying your whistle until a <b>subsequent</b> play is <b>over</b> is simply ludicrous imo.

As to your other statement regarding my competency as an official simply because I didn't agree with your misguided(imo) philosophy, well, the newer, kindlier and gentlier(sic) JR chooses not to respond to that.

You may not like or agree with me personally, but it might behoove you to maybe think about your position when others beside myself disagree vehemently with it. Believe it or not, posters like Nevada and BZ really, really do know what they are talking about. These guys are very knowledgable officials- on rules, mechanics and philosophy. I always have respected their opinions fully, even though we may have happened to disagree every now and then.

Lah me.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 07:11 AM]

[/B][/QUOTE]

So some HS association in N. California is the pinnacle of basketball officiating knowledge?

When they use announcerspeak like over the back, they have nothing to offer.

[/B][/QUOTE]

What the heck are you referring to? Who has nothing to offer? Neither I nor anyone wrote about "over the back."

[/B][/QUOTE]

Zip, nada, zero.

Any philosophy taken to the extreme and taken in absolutes is dangerous.

So your opinion makes you a good official, and disagreeing with it makes you a bad one?

[/B][/QUOTE]

I never wrote I am a better official than you or anyone else. You seem to have this chip on your shoulder that causes you to side with a particular person or group.

The person or persons, who disagree with what I have written, do so with intent to dehumanize myself and others.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well....

I'd work with Nevadaref and JR, on their death beds, putting their last breath into the whistle, making the right call, before I'd work with the likes of you.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I never wrote I would never work with another official and I never would decide on not working with you or any other basketball official. I don't kiss up to your on line buddy ref's nor would I ever ignore an assignment to work games with another basketball official solely based on posted information.

[/B][/QUOTE]

The word clueless comes to mind.:rolleyes:

[/B][/QUOTE]

In your own opinion, continue to roll your eyes and search for your own identity. Try being a team person and stop kissing up to others.

I guess that you don't feel like answering those questions, right, Johnny? Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me.

What may surprise you is that I possibly might just happen to understand the value of a delayed whistle on a play. And you also may be surprised that I most certainly do agree with and advocate that concept. And, seriously, I read the Tower Concept before you even dreamed of becoming an official. However, to recommend delaying your whistle until a <b>subsequent</b> play is <b>over</b> is simply ludicrous imo.

As to your other statement regarding my competency as an official simply because I didn't agree with your misguided(imo) philosophy, well, the newer, kindlier and gentlier(sic) JR chooses not to respond to that.

You may not like or agree with me personally, but it might behoove you to maybe think about your position when others beside myself disagree vehemently with it. Believe it or not, posters like Nevada and BZ really, really do know what they are talking about. These guys are very knowledgable officials- on rules, mechanics and philosophy. I always have respected their opinions fully, even though we may have happened to disagree every now and then.

Lah me.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 07:11 AM] [/B][/QUOTE]

One major problem would be you comprehending my post with your own understanding that I wrote to always hold my whistle until a play a new subsequent play has begun. I don’t care how many years you have officiated basketball games. It does not mean you are a better official than someone who has 1 or 2 years. Years have nothing to do with being a good official. You always write to put others down and to create yourself as being better than everyone else.

Why bring others in to this reply? Do you need others to support you? I have not stated I dislike or like you. I merely disagree with your reply, not to include Tom, Dick or Harry. Your knowledge is well respected by me and maybe others. The topic isn’t about you or me, yet you seem to bring it to such lows. Try sticking to the topic and not to write to belittle a person.

From your article you supplied:

I would like to point out a couple of areas where I feel we tend to call too many fouls rather than following the "Tower Philosophy" One of the areas is the over the back contact on rebounds. I think many of us have made that call and then wondered to ourselves why in the devil we blew the whistle.

Funny, you are putting down others for not reading your post, yet you did not even read your own.

You told two officials...both of whom I respect...that them not agreeing with your opinion made you question their ability to officiate, so again you reading your own posts, or not?

Experience and quality are not the same thing, but, one of the main ingredients to being good is realizing you don't know everything and never will.

You are a long way from realizing that.

In your own opinion, continue to roll your eyes and search for your own identity. Try being a team person and stop kissing up to others.
[/B][/QUOTE]

How many contradictory statements can one have in a paragraph?

In your opinion = I have my own thoughts.

Search for your own idenity = Hmmm, I thought I had my own opinion, perhaps I need YOUR identity.

Try being a team person = I thought you wanted me to be an individual?

Stop kissing up to others = Isn't that being a team person?

I'm confused.:rolleyes:

[Edited by blindzebra on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 08:13 AM]

One major problem would be you comprehending my post with your own understanding that I wrote to always hold my whistle until a play a new subsequent play has begun. I don’t care how many years you have officiated basketball games. It does not mean you are a better official than someone who has 1 or 2 years. Years have nothing to do with being a good official. You always write to put others down and to create yourself as being better than everyone else.

Why bring others in to this reply? Do you need others to support you? I have not stated I dislike or like you. I merely disagree with your reply, not to include Tom, Dick or Harry. Your knowledge is well respected by me and maybe others. The topic isn’t about you or me, yet you seem to bring it to such lows. Try sticking to the topic and not to write to belittle a person.
[/B][/QUOTE](a) I have never posted anywhere or at any time that I am a better official than someone who has 1 or 2 years.
(b) I will put <b>"you always write to put others down and to create yourself as being better than everyone else"</b> in the same basket as <b>"making youself feel like the god of officiating"</b> and <b>"based on your written words, you are not a very good official"</b>. I think that those statements speak for themselves and there's no need for me to respond to them any further, other than to say they hardly go hand-in-hand with <b>"Your knowledge is well respected by me"</b>. Whatever.
(c)I respect the opinions of the others that have responded to you in this thread- i.e. Nevada, BZ, BITSy amongst others too numerous to mention. They have all earned that respect (for whatever <b>that</b> is worth :D) by previously displaying an excellent knowledge of the rules, mechanics and philosophies of basketball officiating. Now, having said that, if you've read this forum for a while, then you haven't been paying much attention. We disagree with each other occasionally- sometimes very vehemently also. We hardly "kiss up to each other", as you put it. I think that we do respect each other though, no matter how strongly we might disagree at times.

Bottom line, Johnny. I respect <b>your</b> right to have <b>your</b> opinion. I think that your opinion in this particular thread is completely wrong. I personally wouldn't advise anybody at any level to follow your advice. That's just <b>my</b> opinion though. If you wanna let it go at that, fine with me. If you want to continue and make some more remarks about how bad an official I must be and detail some of my other failings too, well....have at it and that's fine with me too.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 08:35 AM]

Come on JR, ya know you love me.

Now get over here and plant a big wet one on me.:D

I apply the Tower Principle to contact during the basketball game, rather than to violations. I am sure I have applied this philosophy to violations from time to time (such as the point guard slightly carrying the ball as he dribbles up court with no pressure on him). However, there are certain violations that are black and white - did the ball bounce oob? was there a bc violation? was the ball kicked? was the pivot foot switched? etc. Violations are much more defined, whereas contact is judged before it becomes a foul.

I think to ref advantage/disadvantage with violations is the wrong mind set. In the case being discussed in this thread - defense going oob, the rules state this to be a violation. We do not have much of a choice (unless you deem it an unsportsmanlike conduct technical foul). You could purposely *miss* the call, but I disagree with the philosophy of holding the whistle until the play is overwith and then making a call. If you pass on the play, you live with it, otherwise, call it when it happens.

I think a ref who makes delayed violation calls after the play is done will lose credibility with partners and coaches. Just my opinion.