"The Tower Philosophy".
"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?"

Everyone should be required to read this prior to their first game every year.

That's a lot of words to say, "call what matters, know the spirit and intent of the rules, use common sense."

Z

Z - you're not a lawyer or a theologian are you? I think you'd be a good newpspaper editor! Good condensing of the idea and following the KISS rule.

Not a lawyer or theologian. But working at a large aerospace company for several years has taught me how to quickly wade through paragaphs and paragraphs of B.S. to get to the two meaningful sentences. :eek:

Z

That is an excellent bit of advice. I'm going to print it out and give it to a few of the younger officials I know.

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?

You're kidding, right? Think about what you just wrote for a second. Every hand contact should be a foul? Guys make hand contact on every single play just by accident, as they run past each other. How about the guy who sets a screen and holds his arms crossed in front of his chest? When the defender bumps into him, the screener's hands will make contact with the defender. Or how about a shooter who jumps slightly forward so that his arms contact the hands of a defender who is in his vertical plane? You want to call a PC on that? Or how about helping an opponent up off the floor in a show of good sportsmanship? That's hand contact. You think that should be a foul? You think that would decrease the number of whistles? Guys sure would foul out, that's for sure. But it would not be good for the game, by any stretch of the imagination.

My father, a longtime basketball official, gave me two pieces of advice when I started officiating:

"If you have to work a girls game, try to make it look like basketball"

"Work every game like it is the most important game you have ever worked because, to someone, it is"

But I do like the "Tower Philosophy". I think young officials could benefit from reading it as they would gain a better understanding of a good officiating mindset.

Easy Chuck. I think you're taking his statement out of context. I only read it to mean when the defender was attempting to bat/block the ball or extending it to make contact. I don't think he was even advocating calling it.

I'm not advocating it. I'm just saying that the assertion that officials would make more calls is false. If you tell the players you will call every hand contact, and you call every hand contact, they'll stop contacting with the hand.

Players aren't stupid. If you tell them a rule and you enforce the rule consistantly, they'll follow along.

With all due respect, Jim, that's nuts. If you call a foul every time someone's hand contacts an opponent, either everyone would foul out in the first quarter, or you'd have a few players left who tiptoe around on eggshells. Either way, you don't have basketball.

I gave you several examples of hand contact that legally occurs on routine plays. If we call the game your way, you eliminate screening from the game. Whether the screener holds his arms in front of his chest (totally legal) or in front of the family jewels (totally self-interest), his hands will contact the defender that he's screening.

Two guys going for a loose ball, one of them is bound to touch the other one. Foul?

I guess I agree with you about one thing. They'll stop contacting with the hand. But only b/c they'll all be fouled out.

There was a time when officials would go thru all kinds of gyrations to make a simple call. I worked with two 30+ year officials yesterday and both said there was a time when they would just make a call and their signals were not important. They would say they would watch officials call the game and they would be confused what they called. In their words they stated to me, at least now a day you know what the younger officials have called. Everything that once was does not make it good or right.

Let me take this a step further. These players are more athletic, stronger and faster. If we call the game the way you suggest we would be in the bonus and shoot FTs instead of playing the game. I also do not think anyone just ignores violations; we just do not call very borderline and suspect violations. If I have to guess that he traveled, he did not travel. I know a lot of officials that call things because it looked funny. So just making a call to make a call is not a good thing. I see coaches get really upset when you call something they cannot understand than making calls that everyone can see.

Peace

With all due respect, Jim, that's nuts. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.

Jim,

It is not hand checking if a player simply touches the dribbler. That is not what the rules says or how the rule is defined in the rulebook anywhere. So calling a foul for a touch would be not only incorrect, but not what is expected. I do not care what the players think. The world is not black and white. If they cannot understand that some actions are going to get penalized more often than other actions, then they are going to have a tough time in the world. A speeding ticket is not enforced the same as a carjacking.

Once again, there is a reason why some officials are asked back and others just fade away. Making calls like you suggest will make officials fade away.

Peace

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

That's all I was trying to say.

If that is what you were trying to say, that is not what you actually said. There is a difference between calling a legitimate foul and calling something that is not really there. If you said the same thing I would have never responded.

Peace