But Jim, neither of those examples is an unavoidable part of the game of basketball. Hand contact is unavoidable if you're setting a screen. Or if you're cutting around a defender in close quaters. Or if you're contesting a loose ball on the ground.

Now you look at it from a player's point of view. You may never touch an opponent with your hand, ever. Would you really want to play basketball if the refs enforced that rule?

Chuck, I don't think Jim is advocating for the position of calling every single solitary contact. He's just saying that players will adjust to how we call it. The Tower Philosophy seems to say call less so the flow of the game won't be interrupted. But Jim's saying that however it's called, players will adjust (over time) and after a certain adjustment period, the flow will be there, although the game might be a little different. So the Tower argument is specious. It should say, this is the compromise we've all agreed on as the mushy middle between calling nothing and calling everything. Jim's saying that to base it on the principle of "don't interrupt the flow" is not good reasoning.

I understand exactly what Jim's saying. But he's the one who first mentioned calling every touch of the hand a foul (whether he advocates it or not). My only point is that I don't think the players can adjust to a no-touch policy. You can't help touching an opponent in many basketball situations. If we called fouls in all of those situations, everybody would foul out. It wouldn't be basketball anymore, and nobody would want to play it.

Forget everything else. What's written above is how the Tower Philosophy relates to hand-contact. It ain't rocket science either.

What's the purpose/intent of the philosophy? To ensure that no player gains an advantage over an opponent that's not intended by the applicable rule. If the hand contact gives a player an advantage, call it. If not, don't. It's always a judgement call.

It's no different than contact between opponents while rebounding or contact going for a loose ball.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 26th, 2005 at 02:10 PM]

I don't think your father has seen a girls game lately .. my advice is:

"If you have to work a girls game, work like it is the most important game you have ever worked because, to someone, it is".

Sorry, but the statement kind of irked me.

Any cut and dry, explicitly worded rule will be followed as long as it's enforced. As soon as officials let it go, the players will try to get away with it. [/B][/QUOTE]

This is the second reference to calling every bit of hand contact regardless of its impact on the play.

This may be on the harsh side, but Tower Philosophy is talking about you. the rules editors do not intend for us to call all contact, because "not all contact is a foul." My pregame with you, Call it when an advantage is gained, call the obvious.

The pot has been stirred....:)

Forget principles, read the freakin rulebook
 

We do not need the Tower Principle to know this. The rules say all contact is not a foul. The rulebook even says that contact can be severe and no foul should be called if normal action is not being prevented by either offensive or defensive players. That is why comments from Jim drive me crazy. People will read this and think they have to call a foul when no advantage is gained so we can send a message. The rulebook is not suggesting that all fouls are touching, so I really do not see where people get that idea from.

Peace

JRut

That is my point.

I was not commenting just because of what you said. I was saying something that I should have said before in this thread.

Peace

Re: Forget principles, read the freakin rulebook
 

Please show me where in my post I said that "all touching is a foul" (what I think you were trying to say before I drove you crazy}.

I will shine your patent leather shoes if you can.

First post - "I believe this assertion to be false. If the referees called every hand contact as a foul, the players would stop using their hands, and the number of whistles would remain the same. Or the players would foul out, and eventually get the message.

It's like saying if we call double dribbles, we'll interrupt the flow of the game, so let's allow double dribbles.

The number of fouls called in games has not seemed to me to have significantly decreased over the years despite the allowal of more contact. Years ago there were a lot of cheap fouls called. Now there are a lot of hard fouls called. Which is better for play? Which is safer for the players?"

Second post - "LOL.

Look at it from a player's point of view. If you tell a player he's not allowed to dribble with two hands, he tries his best not to dribble with two hands. How many double-dribbles a game do you call?

Another example. It's illegal to wear jewelry. When you tell a player to remove their jewelry, how often do they come back into the game wearing the jewelry?

Any cut and dry, explicitly worded rule will be followed as long as it's enforced. As soon as officials let it go, the players will try to get away with it."

Now if it's the last paragraph you are upset about, I understand. It's just my humble opinion.

BTW, I don't disagree with the Tower Principle, just Bunn's explanation of it.

This is the second reference to calling every bit of hand contact regardless of its impact on the play.
[/B][/QUOTE]

No it has nothing to do with calling hand contact, it's about wearing jewelry. See Spot. See Spot run. Is that the third reference?

Jim,

I cannot really speak for your area or even what every other official around me does. I do know that I do not see that much palming in games. I call it when it happens and when I see it clearly. I think a lot of times officials call things when they "think" it happen rather than when it really did. I call palming when it jumps out at me just like traveling. I think traveling is much more inconsistently call than palming ever has been, at least that is what I see.

Peace

I made this comment about 2 months ago and was bashed for it, but I will make it again. It should satisfy both sides of this argument. Officiating is subjective. By definition SUBJECTIVE means: judgment based on individual personal impressions.

As we see on this board on a daily basis,even amonst Veteran officials, we dont always agree. Subjectivity, or judgement calls, are often disagreed upon. Hand checking, illegal screens, and contact during rebounds are often viewed differently by officials. You can watch a major NCAA game and see two officials pointing in different directions on a charging/blocking foul. Same can be said for ball being batted out of bounds. Officiating depends on what you think you saw and from what angle you saw it. Different angles create different vantage points. Not all officiating is cut and dry. Not all calls are by the book. Different official call games differently. Just how we work as individuals and humans.

Palming is apparently a point of emphasis this year for NCAA. As with most points of emphasis, you will see it called more frequently early this season, then everyone will forget about it and go back to their tried and true methods.

There was a game on TV the other night where palming was called twice in two trips down the floor, then again in the second half. (I think it was the Illinois - Wichita State game, but I could be mistaken.)

Interestingly, either the players stopped palming the ball or the officials stopped calling illegal dribbles for palming. It only took three calls to change the behavior!

Jim,

I watch a lot of basketball and palming is called more than you might think. It might not be called every situation it should be, but it is called. Just because there is a POE does not mean no one has ever called it. It is really not a call you have to make 10 times again. You call hand checking a couple of times and players will adjust. I just do not believe in calling cheap fouls that are not there.

Peace