I understand the premise of advantage/disadvantage. Recently I have heard many refs making calls, or not making them, based on advantage/disadvantage alone. Real life example: A1 is dribbling up sideline to break a press. B1 is running along side but is taking an angle that bumps A1 enough off her line, that if she would continue to run/dribble, momentum would take her out of bounds. She was on a perfect parallel line to sideline before the "minor" bump. The coach yelled, "no call?" and the ref said, "did she gain advantage coach?", implying he thought the defender had not gained advantage by the bump. However, it appeared to me that the bump gave her advantage as it forced A1 to pull up her dribble or go out of bounds (should she have contiued out of bounds to try to draw the call but then risk a turnover?). Does the advantage/disadvantage put us in an "disadvantageous" spot by ignoring contact we might normally call but focus on whether or not advantage was gained? Are there times when we should dispense with adv/disadv? Are there times when using adv/disadv is imperative to making the right call?

Have you considered that the official in the play you describe was simply wrong? :)

When the players is bumped and then goes out of bounds the official should always call something in favor of the team with the ball. By rule it should be the foul, but I have seen it just be called an OOB with team A still receiving the ball. One D1 official called it a force out. Why this would be called wrong is that a lot of officials are not watching the defense as taught and is only watching the ball. The ball went OOB. Tournover. Bad call.

Yep, that's what I said. He missed the call. :D

To really get the hang of advantage/disadvantage, you've got to watch a lot of ball as an observer. Do it in your area, with refs that are reffing the same schools you're working in, so that you start to see what they're calling and not calling. When you're observing, try to get down near the floor, so you've got the angle the ref has. Also, work on the art of the late whistle. Sometimes, the advantage or disadvantage doesn't show up for a second or two. There is such a thing as a TOO late whistle, but often just a hesitation on your part is a smart move toward applying A/D.

Juulie has it right. There is really a fine line between a foul and a no-call. In order to know that line you must watch a lot of basketball. I can tell you it took me some time to have a more patient whistle and when to blow the whistle and not to blow the whistle. I am not going to say that I am great at it, but many of my fouls are blown after the action happen. My whistle is especially slow on shooting attempts. A few years ago my whistle would be blown the minute come contact took place. Now I wait a second or two before I even make a foul call.

I do not think any of us know for sure if this was the proper call one way or the other. None of us were at the game. What you have to decide is did the ball handler take herself out of bound or did the bump do that? If the bump caused the player to do something they would not have done, then you have a foul.

Peace

Yes I considered a missed call
 

and actually chalked it up to that when i first witnessed it. However, I got to thinking about his comment regarding advantage/disadvantage and thought more along those lines. It seems to me, to make advantage/disadvantage work, you MUST have a slower whistle. Otherwise, you would not be able to determine if advantage was gained or lost.

[Edited by lmeadski on Feb 16th, 2006 at 10:21 AM]

Rather than slow whistle, I like to think of it as a patient whistle. The better athletes you have, the more you can call a game advantage/disadvantage. It takes time. The hard part is to be consistant, depending on the quality of play. An example from my experience was that last summer in our state games (like a state olympics) I had a 1A varsity HS team playing a 4A all star sophmore team. It was an advantage/disadvantage nightmare. The small school had smaller, weaker, slower players that could not play through the contact the 4A kids could. Luckily it was a blow out and the game was decided about 4 minutes in.

I agree with Tim. As a newer official working the young rec ball leagues, I allowed the ball to stay with the team that caused the ball to go out of bounds due to a bump. As I started to work games with the "older" kids, an official quickly pointed out my flawed thinking. I recall him telling me not to play with OOB lines and call the foul. Obviously the bump was a disadvantage as it caused A-1 to go out of bounds.

I find that the principle of using advantage/disadvantage when calling fouls, can sometimes get you introuble. A "reach" with minor contact and no obvious disadvantage (player maintains control) may not earn a whistle. I recall however, that sometimes offensive players may actually benefit from the no call. There were instances where they were able to get a head and shoulders past their defender, and go in for an uncontested lay up. I also recall a coach complaining about "no calls" toward the end of a game (same situation - no advantage/disadvantage). He passed a remark that if the calls were made, he'd be able to put his non-starters in the game (the foul shots would have given him a comfortable edge in scoring to allow him to do so). We had been consistent in calling the same game all night. Go figure!


As far as Rut's comment concerning "patient" whistles, I too prescribe to that method. Unfortunately, I used it in a bad situation. This was during a varsity game with two schools that both had 1-7 records. The game was competitive as they were evenly matched. With 39 seconds left and team A up by 3 points, they took a shot at their basket. As the rebound came off the rim, a B player was in perfect position to secure the rebound. In comes an A player jumping over his back (contact made) and tapping the ball backwards. Why I would use a patient whistle here is beyond me! I waited, what admittedly was a second or two, that felt as if it were ten. The ball went to a team A player and "tweet." The coach went nuts. I reported and allowed him to momentarily vent. I told him the whistle was late, however, it was the right call. Naturally he didn't care if the call was right. What made it worse, was the fact that his team only had three fouls to the other team's eight. Anyway to make a long post shorter, team B hits a three and ties the game. Team B then steals the inbound pass. No, they didn't win. Team A had many fouls to give and did. They won in overtime.

The whole point of the story, is that a patient whistle must be used under the right circumstances. The above wasn't one of them.

I think one of the biggest problems I have seen with officials using the A/D principle is a lack of understanding what and advantage or disadvantage is...in the scenario described, there most certainly was an advantage gained by the defender causing contact with the ball-handler. The comment by the official shows that he really doesn't have a good grasp of the A/D principle. Too many people think that it is the amount of contact or severity of contact that creates an A/D...not true. I love the concept that came out of the NBA os S/B/Q/R - speed, balance, quickness, rythmn...if the contact affects any of those things, an advantage has been gained and there should be a whistle. And that applies to both offensive and defensive players - the offensive player can certainly affect the SBQR of the defender also...

Altho it pains me greatly to mention this (now that my hypno-therapy has worn off), a perfect example of the A/D principle would be the Offensive Pass Interference call against the Seahwks in the Sloppy Bowl - err, I mean Super Bowl. Not much contact, but it certainly created an advantage for the Seattle receiver and put the Pittsburgh defender at a huge disadvantage...the official saw that and correctly threw the flag (it took me a few days to be able to admit this, but the 12 step plan is working for me)...in my mind that is absolutely the BEST Advantage/Disadvantage call I have seen in any sport in years...

I'll give ya that one...

but, how's that 12 step plan working for you on the "phantom" holding call on the Seahawk's RT Locklear?...That one prevented the Hawks the ball at about the 3 yard line! (one of TE Stevenson's few catches)

...now you've done it rocky...my heart rate and blood pressure have just risen to post superbowl readings. (and I was doing so good) ;)

Repeat after me - "Higher Power. Higher Power"...now take two valium and go see your hnpotist...works every time for me.

I agree with:

Rainmaker
Rut
Rocky
Event
Junker
Tim
Bktballref

:D
:D
:D

Geeze, I thought that the official blew that call. The touching didn't affect the play at all and it should have been ignored. The defender touched the receiver just prior to that on the same play, and that touching was ignored.

If that penalty hadn't have been called, the Seahawks would be Super Bowl champions today. Instead, they'll be like the Mariners of the early 90's and have to wait another 15-20 years(minimum) to get another chance.

I'm always there for ya, pal!

Shut up!