|
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 04:03am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I have not seen it written in any of the NFHS books but used in principle such as; SITUATION: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5, running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5s intentional violation should be ignored and A1s activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (9-3-2; 10-1-8) Let me know what you think about the information below... ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------ Six decades ago, a new and innovative philosophy of officiating was introduced to players, coaches and officials around the world. It had been originated by Mr. Oswald Tower, a leader in basketball and basketball officiating for many years, and polished by John Bunn, renowned coach and basketball builder. The philosophy, called "The Tower Philosophy", was basically very simple. Contact, it said, is not necessarily a foul. Contact does become a foul when the player, who is contacted, is placed at an unfair disadvantage by that con-tact, or the player responsible for the contact gains an unfair advantage in doing so. It wasn't very long before a number of principles were developed in the hope of clarifying the Tower Philosophy. These principles have remained essentially intact until the present time and continue to be reflected in Article 44 of the FIBA Rulebook. With time, the Tower Philosophy underwent a name change and became "the advantage/disadvantage principle", but the philosophy itself remained in tact. In fact, it continued to grow in popularity and eventually would include not only contact but also violations (Article 32.2). As the skill and speed of world-class players continued to grow, however, two problems relative to consistent officiating also became apparent. First of all, many officials were becoming too lenient with the advantage/disadvantage principle, sometimes even using the concept as an excuse to justify not blowing a whistle on occasions when a foul or violation definitely was the proper decision. Secondly, not only newer officials, but experienced ones as well, were becoming confused with the challenge of determining under what circumstances contact should be considered "an unfair advantage" and when to judge similar contact as incidental. The presence of ten, quickly moving players in the limited space that is a basketball court made the rendering of accurate and consistent decisions very difficult. Additional guide-lines would be a tremendous help. In an attempt to address this need, a new principle was introduced, which became increasingly popular with rules clinicians and referee instructors, whose responsibility it was to promote a reliable and constant application of the rules. This new concept, designed to complement rather than replace the advantage/disadvantage principle, was called "The Principle of Offensive Threat", or simple "offensive threat". The basic assumptions of the Principle of Offensive Threat are as follows: 1. The periods of a basketball game that are the most exciting for players and fans are those situations, which involve offensive maneuvers leading to attempts to score field goals. A game can become very boring when it is dominated by lack of action and passive play. On the other hand, games that involve "end-to-end" action, aggressive offense and equally aggressive defense are, by far, the most memorable. The reality is that it is the offense, in its attempts to advance the ball, and ultimately, score a field goal, that generates reactive defense and the resulting excitement that is basketball at its best. 2. As a team moves the ball from its backcourt to its frontcourt, the anticipation that precedes an attempt to score increases. This anticipation is what is referred to as "offensive threat". In the backcourt, under normal circumstances, this anticipation is minimal, but, as the ball moves closer to the centre line and into the frontcourt and the opponents' basket, the offensive threat grows. This is also the time when defensive alignments become more active. Where there is active offense balanced by active defense, there is also a heightened sense of offensive threat. Offensive threat is at its highest when the ball is in the vicinity of (or moves into) rectangle 5. 3. As the ball moves from the backcourt to the frontcourt, the accompanying awareness of a growing offensive threat creates five zones, based on the anticipation of an approaching shot for goal. These five zones are: a) the backcourt not including the centre line area b) the area on both sides of the centre line (where, under normal circumstances, defensive pressure is first encountered); c) rectangles 1-2-3 (especially deep in these areas); d) rectangles 4 and 6 (where perimeter shooting will often take place); e) rectangle 5 (with its post play, "inside" shots for goal, rebounding and inevitable congestion of players). 4. Where the ball is located relative to these five zones will influence an official's decision as to whether a Potential infraction should be penalized, or should, instead, be judged as incidental to the play. In other words, the location of the ball and, there-fore, the degree of offensive threat can very well be a guideline in determining if the advantage/disadvantage principle has been violated. 5. Most officials will agree that, in a Situation where the ball is in the backcourt and when minimal defensive pressure is being applied, the advisability of interrupting play because of unintentional contact is questionable. This is not to say that contact will never be judged a foul if the ball is in the back court; unsportsmanlike contact will always be judged as a foul, as will advantageous contact by either the dribbler or the person guarding that dribbler. It should also be noted that increased defensive pressure (three or more defensive players in the offensive team's back court) could it- self create an offensive threat Situation. It's the nature of the game that active defense generates reactive offense. 6. As the ball is moved out of zone (a) and through the other zones, offensive threat grows. This is on the assumption, of course, that an accompanying increase of defensive pressure is being encountered as the ball moves from zone to zone, something that will happen under normal circumstances. As offensive threat increases, the likelihood of a team's gaining an unfair advantage through the causing of contact also in creases. In these situations it is crucial that the official "see the whole play". It is not contact itself that is a foul but rather the effect of that contact insofar as it creates an unfair advantage (and therefore unfair disadvantage) as a result. 7. The offensive threat principle can therefore provide a very real assistance in deciding whether or not specific con tact should be penalized as a foul. The fact remains, however, that it is only with experience, not only through active officiating, but also through observing as many games as possible, that an ac-curate and consistent grasp of the advantage/disadvantage principle can be gained. 
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 09:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I was also aware of the Tower Philosophy- and have been for many years. I agree with it too. However, that philosophy was taught to me as only being applicable to making a decision as to whether physical contact was a foul or not. I was always under the impression that the Tower Philosophy was never written with "violations" in mind and was also never meant to apply to "violations" either. I don't think that there is any mention of anything else than "contact" in the text of the particular philosophy. I'm not trying to be a smart-azz with these questions btw. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. It kinda looks like we've been taught entirely different principles. Edited to add: Btw, jmo but I think that the FED summed up the complete Tower Philosophy anyway under R4-27--INCIDENTAL CONTACT. [Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 17th, 2005 at 09:42 AM]
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 09:29am
|
|||
|
|||
|
That has to be the longest post I've seen on this board.
__________________
Do you ever feel like your stuff strutted off without you?
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005, 11:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yep!
__________________
 That's my whistle -- and I'm sticking to it!
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
