On the line, out of bounds?

[lmeadski]

This question relates to another thread about advantage/disadvantage: Varsity Game. A1 passes to A2 who does NOT control the pass (no one from the other team is pressing, they have fallen back into a zone in the front court). A2 gains control of the ball near the sideline (in front of the opponents bench) and steps ONTO the sideline. According to the other recent posts I have read, this would be a NO CALL because no advantage was gained. Is this correct?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

HELLL NO!! This is one of those things that everyone in the gym sees. You MUST call it.

[CaliOne]

This question is a set-up, right?

[lmeadski]

In reading through other threads, it seems to be popular to ignore calls that dont result in an advantage/disadvantage. One thread on the site currently talks about the FT shooter touching the line with his foot prior to shooting. It seemed the popular answer to ignore the call based on the theory/practice of advantage/disadvantage.

[JugglingReferee]

JR will be by shortly to comment that A/D does not apply to violations. I agree 99.99% of the time.

This one though, ya gotta call it.

[CaliOne]

I let at OB call go just last week. Team A was getting blown out by 30 pts and couldnt get anyting going on offense. FINALLY, a player from outside drives to the hoop on the baseline, stepping squarely on the line. I was so excited that this team finally did something I let it go. The kid ended up throwing it back outside and it was stolen by the other team, however...

[CaliOne]

What about traveling violations? Come on, we all know we let some little ones slide now and then.. unless we are not watching their feet and miss it, of course.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by CaliOne
I let at OB call go just last week. Team A was getting blown out by 30 pts and couldnt get anyting going on offense. FINALLY, a player from outside drives to the hoop on the baseline, stepping squarely on the line. I was so excited that this team finally did something I let it go. The kid ended up throwing it back outside and it was stolen by the other team, however...

We all have brain farts here and there. Funny how brain farts that I have are in similar situations.

[CaliOne]

honestly it wasn't a brain fart, it was an intentional no call on my part. Not that i dont ever have brain farts.

[Adam]

Originally posted by lmeadski
In reading through other threads, it seems to be popular to ignore calls that dont result in an advantage/disadvantage. One thread on the site currently talks about the FT shooter touching the line with his foot prior to shooting. It seemed the popular answer to ignore the call based on the theory/practice of advantage/disadvantage.

By rule, A/D applies to contact in determining whether it's a foul. Violations don't require advantage or disadvantage to be called. Line calls, illegal dribbling, traveling, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, etc., do not require advantage.

Frankly, at the high school level, I'm probably going to call this if I see it. Below that, I'll talk to the kid.

[lmeadski]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

By rule, A/D applies to contact in determining whether it's a foul. Violations don't require advantage or disadvantage to be called. Line calls, illegal dribbling, traveling, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, etc., do not require advantage.

Frankly, at the high school level, I'm probably going to call this if I see it. Below that, I'll talk to the kid.

That is how I was told to apply Ad/Disad. However, i was a bit stunned by other threads implying they would let violations go based on adv/disadv. To me, this could make adv/disadv a bit too arbitrary in its application.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by lmeadski

That is how I was told to apply Ad/Disad. However, i was a bit stunned by other threads implying they would let violations go based on adv/disadv. To me, this could make adv/disadv a bit too arbitrary in its application.

Relax, will ya.

The other thread had to do with a player making a free throw with his foot touching the line.

If your goal is to have everyone know how well you've memorized the rule book knock yourself out & call this FT violation.

I'm sure your audience will enjoy their kid's 3rd grade game that much more, knowing you're on top of every little thing.

[lmeadski]

you never said what you would call in this situation....

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by lmeadski

That is how I was told to apply Ad/Disad. However, i was a bit stunned by other threads implying they would let violations go based on adv/disadv. To me, this could make adv/disadv a bit too arbitrary in its application.

I don't think that you are gonna get a reply to your question that will satisfy you. Experienced officials (with the emphasis on "experienced") will apply advantage/disadvantage to a few violations. These are usually violations for an act that isn't very noticeable and doesn't really affect the game in any way at all. A couple of examples are a post player with his toe inside the 3-second area or the afore-mentioned toe-on-the-line by a free-throw shooter. If it's a black'n'white call like a foot on a boundary line or the FT shooter stepping over the line, then those ones gotta get called. Violations with a gray area though- like maybe a possible carry without defensive pressure or a pivot-foot shuffle- might not get called, depending on the game circumstances. I can't give any hard and fast rules to go by. It's just something that you pick up off of the good oficials that you work with and then further hone on your own with game experience.

Sometimes the calling of violations definitely is arbitrary. You probably ain't gonna like that explanation either, but it's the best one I can give you. Take it fwiw. Or not.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 23rd, 2006 at 08:54 PM]

[lmeadski]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I don't think that you are gonna get a reply to your question that will satisfy you. Experienced officials (with the emphasis on "experienced") will apply advantage/disadvantage to a few violations. These are usually violations for an act that isn't very noticeable and doesn't really affect the game in any way at all. A couple of examples are a post player with his toe inside the 3-second area or the afore-mentioned toe-on-the-line by a free-throw shooter. If it's a black'n'white call like a foot on a boundary line or the FT shooter stepping over the line, then those ones gotta get called. Violations with a gray area though- like maybe a possible carry without defensive pressure or a pivot-foot shuffle- might not get called, depending on the game circumstances. I can't give any hard and fast rules to go by. It's just something that you pick up off of the good oficials that you work with and then further hone on your own with game experience.

Sometimes the calling of violations definitely is arbitrary. You probably ain't gonna like that explanation either, but it's the best one I can give you. Take it fwiw. Or not.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 23rd, 2006 at 08:54 PM]

Actually, your reply is very helpful. Another recent thread, which I think you reference, talked about letting a foot FT violation go. I wanted to know what others felt about other lines and violations. New refs gain experience by watching other good, experienced refs and by asking questions like this one. I do not stricly apply the three second rule and am still learning which violations may require a bit of flexibility in enforcement. What i really thought i was missing was WHEN to use adv/disadv, especially as it relates to violations. One of two local assignors is working as my mentor. I asked her about this scenario and she replied that she may call it under one circumstance and not another. Its all part of my learning process.

In your reply you mention that maybe I wont like your reply. JR, your answers always seem to be well thought out, logical, and you reference the rules when needed. I know much of reffing is not black and white. Thanks for helping me with some of the gray areas.