|
Thu Jun 15, 2006, 12:51am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 For instance- "They miss the reality that the spirit and intent of the Tower Philosphy is the basis for making a sound and consistant judgement, one that is used in deciding to blow the whistle or not blow the whistle, but NEVER to ignore an obvious infraction". Here's the complete article, Bill, minus the...uh...editing: Btw, fwiw, I got handed a copy of the Tower Philosophy at least 40 years ago. http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/dow...sp?file_id=370 I see that Jackie Loube also basically says that the Tower Philosophy is not for officials just learning the game. It should only be used by experienced, capable officials that possess a thorough knowledge of the rules of the game. Also please note that he only refers to advantage/disadvantage using the Tower Philosophy as it relates to physical contact, not violations. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:07am. 
|
|
Thu Jun 15, 2006, 08:30am
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's a great link, JR. Thanks
__________________
9-11-01 http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php http://www.carydufour.com/marinemoms...llowribbon.jpg
|
|
Thu Jun 15, 2006, 09:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loube Tower Philsophy
Jurassic Referee:
Thanks for Mr. Loube's article on the Tower Philosphy. I did not edit the original text that I presented earlier in this thread. That is the "Philosophy" that I was given early in my officiating career. I definitely agree with you in regard to new officials learning both rules and proper mechanics before being exposed to this "Philosophy". We try to have our new class each year learn the rules to "pass the test". It isn't until later in their careers at our "Bread and Butter" clinics that we expose them to the "Tower Philosophy". I do, however, disagree with you that the "Tower Philsophy" only deals with fouls and should not be used with violations. I have never seen this in writing and would welcome any expert and reliable sources, like the Loube article, that you could cite to back up your statement. Examples where I, and the members of my association, believe that the "Philsophy" should be used with violations include the carry (palming) rule and the three-second rule.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
|
|
Thu Jun 15, 2006, 09:16pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Why don't you e-mail Jackie Loube and ask him if he thinks that the Tower Philosophy should apply to traveling and palming? He is your IAABO Executive Director, isn't he? Chuck E., next time you're on on of your IAABO interepreter's conference calls, why don't you ask the same question? I would love to hear IAABO's official stance on this, bearing in mind also that any IAABO response is for information only and is not a valid NFHS ruling or interpretation in most states. I await your response.
|
|
Fri Jun 16, 2006, 09:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
NFHS Advantage Disadvantage
Jurassic Referee:
The statements below are taken directly from the 2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Book. They can be found under the heading "The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules": "It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by a rule." Two of the three statements refer to "rules". Rules include both fouls and violations. If you have any expert and reliable sources that you could cite to back up your statement that the concept of advantage disadvantage only refers to physical contact i.e. fouls, I would welcome that information. If the ball is being dribbled in the frontcourt out near the division line, and an offensive player has a half of an inch of the heel of his sneaker on the middle of the foul line for exactly three seconds, I'm not calling a three second violation on that player unless I think he is gaining an advantage at that time. I may even verbally warn offensive players to "get out of the lane". At some point, when I believe that such a player is gaining an advantage in posting up an opponent to receive a pass or in getting into a position to gain an advantage in getting an offensive rebound, I will definitely call the three second violation, with or without a verbal warning.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
|
|
Fri Jun 16, 2006, 09:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
JR, I guess that means BillyMac is afraid to pose your question to Mr. Loube.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
|
|
Sat Jun 17, 2006, 01:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Again, forget about 3-seconds. I want to know if IAABO, specifically through it's rules guru, Jackie Loube, agrees with you that advantage/disadvantage applies to violations such as traveling and palming. Yes, specifically traveling and palming, as you say they do. Now, you're an IAABO local executive member. It should be easy as heck to e-mail him and get an answer from him immediately. I again await your answer from Mr. Loube.
|
|
Sat Jun 17, 2006, 01:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Chuck, does the Tower Philosophy mean that advantage/disadvantage should apply to violations like traveling or palming? Does it also apply to all violations, as BillyMac is teaching? Or just a specific violation or two- like maybe 3-seconds? Just wondering what your thoughts are....
|
|
Sat Jun 17, 2006, 01:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Advantage Disadvantage
Jurassic Referee:
On June 14, 2006, you posted on this Forum thread the following statement: “Advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations”. It was at this point that I decided to join the thread. Since then I have posted a handout given to me about the Tower Philosophy, unfortunately I can’t find the source of the handout, you have posted an article from a reliable source about the Tower Philosophy, and I have posted some statements from the NFHS Rule Book about the spirit and intent of the rules and advantage and disadvantage. Discounting my first handout, because I cannot name the source, two of these three references in no way state that the Tower Philosophy, advantage disadvantage, or the spirit and intent of the rules pertain only to “physical contact” (fouls). To paraphrase your own statement, since you made the statement first, “it's up to you to back” it up. From you username, Jurassic Referee, and from you many threads and posts on this Forum, I can guess that you are a very experienced official. Your threads and posts show a great understanding of basketball officiating, and your rule citations show that much of what you post can be backed up by the rules. I look forward to your threads and posts because I can always learn something from them. For example, in this thread, I fully agree with you that new officials should not be exposed to the Tower Philosophy, the spirit and intent of the rules, and advantage disadvantage, until they completely understand the rule book, case book, mechanics manual, and have gained some experience on the floor in real games. I am also an experienced official, maybe not as experienced as you are, but never the less, I have officiated many games. I am a twenty-five year member of IAABO Central Connecticut Board # 6, twenty years as a varsity official. I have not officiated any state tournament games, but I have officiated several conference tournament finals and semifinals. Due to family responsibilities, I never thought about moving up to college officiating. I have attended several camps and have been taught by many great officials. For most of my twenty-five years, my board interpreter was John McDonnell, one of the top officials in the Connecticut. He has been our state interpreter and served as the education chairman for the international organization. He was a Division I college official and now serves as an observer of officials for the Arizona athletic organization. Our present interpreter is Pete Palermino, another great high school and Division I college official. Our board members have been taught to officiate games using the Tower Philosophy and the principle of advantage disadvantage. We have been taught to officiate, not literally by the rulebook, but by the spirit and intent of the rules, all rules, both violations and fouls. All I am doing is to respectfully ask that you “back” up your statement “advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations” and that the Tower Philosophy, advantage disadvantage, or the spirit and intent of the rules pertain only to “physical contact” (fouls). In many of your previous threads and posts, you very often list many rule citations to back up your statements, that I agree with 99% of the time. Please do the same for this topic, the 1% of the time that I diagree with you.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
|
|
Sat Jun 17, 2006, 02:20pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Again, what is Mr. Loube's and IAABO's position on this matter? Do they agree with you and your association that traveling, paming and other violations, iow all violations, should be called by advantage/disadvantage principles? Do John McDonnell and Pete Palermino also agree that all violations should be called by advantage/disadvantage? A very simple question for you to ask Mr. Loube and the others, Billy. Why are you ducking answering it? I would really like to know if that is the official IAABO position on calling violations. Again, I await the official IAABO response. I will comment further at that time. Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 02:26pm.
|
|
Sat Jun 17, 2006, 08:46pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
IAABO Education Chairman And NFHS Rule Book
Jurassic Referee:
Mr. Loube is not the "rules guru" (your quote) of the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials. He is the Executive director and takes care of the business end of out international organization. The closest thing that IAABO has to a "rules guru" is the chairman of the education committee. John McDonnell, our local and state interpreter, served on the international education committee for several years and was, at one point, chairman of the committee. After attending many clinics in Connecticut, one as recently as this past Tuesday night, with Mr. McDonnell in attendance, I can say, with all certainty, that IAABO officials in Connecticut officiate games, not by the literal intrepretation of the rule book, but rather, we officiate the game keeping in mind the Tower Philosophy, advantage disadvantage, and, most importantly, the spirit and intent of the rules. With the exception of the Tower Philsophy, the other two principles (advantage disasdvantage, spirit and intent of the rules) are included in the National Federation of High Schools Rule Book under "The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules". In summary, my reliable sources include our local intepreter, our state interpreter, the chairman of the education committee of the international organization, and the National Federation of High Schools Rule Book. "A very simple question for you", Jurassic Referee: Why will you not "back up" your statement that “advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations” (June 14, 2006) and that the Tower Philosophy, advantage disadvantage, or the spirit and intent of the rules pertain only to “physical contact” (fouls) with reliable sources? "Why are you ducking answering it?"
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 08:49pm.
|
|
Sun Jun 18, 2006, 06:55am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Now....I disagree completely and vehemently with this IAABO philosophy. My own personal opinion is that violations were never intended to be called as per the Tower Philosophy, and that advantage/disadvantage generally does NOT apply to violations. Note that is my opinion. Iow, I don't agree with the official IAABO opinion that you have cited. Please note that is all your(IAABO's) take on this is also-- just your- IAABO's- opinion. Neither of us can back up anything iow, and we never could, because all we're talking about here is basically just a difference of opinion. I just don't think that it was ever intended by the rules makers for violations such as traveling and palming to be ignored. That is my own personal opinion. I'm not talking about something that might be arguably a violation or not; I'm talking about an obvious palm or travel violation that an official just decides to ignore. Yes, 3-seconds certainly has historically been called along advantage/disadvantage guidelines. Most coaches will recognize that. Most coaches, however, won't recognize that it's OK to ignore an obvious traveling or palming violation by their opponent. If you ignore it if their team committed the violation- yes, that's OK. If their opponent did- no, that ain't OK. I also agree that, under certain circumstances( out-of-sight game, etc.), an official may choose to ignore some borderline stuff that might include an actual violation of a certain kind. Imo though, any obvious violation should never be ignored. Also, some particular violations(OOB, backcourt, obvious FT) should also never be ignored. If there was any doubt in the first place whether there was a violation or not, then we shouldn't be calling it anyway. If it's obvious, it's gotta be called with no exceptions. It is also my opinion that when to ignore something that happens on the court is a skill that is acquired by good officials through experience and that skill can't be taught- it must be learned. And some officials never learn it, even though they may try to use it in a game. Obviously, we disagree and obviously we always will. It's a waste of time debating this further. Just let me tell you though that I am personally very disappointed that an organization such as IAABO is training it's officials to ignore certain rules. I was an IAABO member for many years, and I had a lot of respect for that organization. As I said, that's just my personal opinion though. And my personal opinion really means squat in the grand scope of basketball officiating. Or anything else, for that matter. Thank goodness though that IAABO's personal opinion basically also means squat to everybody but it's members too.Btw, your reliable sources listed above doesn't include the NFHS rule book. You're giving your interpretion of the FED philosophy. My interpretation differs. Your reliable sources include your IAABO members only, and basically your reliable sources are as reliable as I am, or anyone else who wants to formulate their own opinion on this also. Chuck? MTD Sr.? Have you guys got any thoughts on this from a personal or IAABO standpoint? Last edited by Jurassic Referee; Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 07:03am.
|
|
Sun Jun 18, 2006, 09:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anyway, I honestly don't know what IAABO's "official" stance on this question is. If you made me guess, I would guess that IAABO would agree with JR: viz., that the Tower Philosophy is to be applied to contact situations only. If you really want me to, I will email Peter Webb and ask, although I can't promise that I will get an answer. Personally, I apply Ad/Disad to 3-seconds, palming and FT lane violations.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
|
|
Sun Jun 18, 2006, 09:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
We Actually Agree (On Some Points)
Jurassic Referee:
Thanks for your response. You are corrrect that opinions and interpretations of rules often go hand in hand, and what we have here is, simply, a difference of opinion. However, for your information, and for the rest of the Forum, we actually agree on several points made in your following quotes: "advantage/disadvantage generally (my boldface) does NOT apply to violations" "3-seconds certainly has historically been called along advantage/disadvantage guidelines" "under certain circumstances (out-of-sight game, etc.), an official may choose to ignore some borderline stuff that might include an actual violation of a certain kind" "when to ignore something that happens on the court is a skill that is acquired by good officials through experience and that skill can't be taught - it must be learned" "any obvious violation should never be ignored" "If it's obvious, it's gotta be called with no exceptions" "backcourt, obvious FT) should also never be ignored" I actually agree with you 100% on the seven statements above. The reason why I have been so vehement about this thread is the single word "never" in your statement “advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations” (June 14, 2006). Never is a very strong word, but I can see from your most recent thread and from your quotes above, that you may recognize some limited exceptions to your statement. To be honest with you, I really haven't enjoyed this repartee that we have continued over the past few days. I have really learned a lot from the Forum since I discovered it a few years ago, but I have been often "turned off" when some members get too personal, sometimes leading to unprofessional remarks, and at some point in this thread, I thought we were heading in that direction. I hope that this thread had been beneficial to some officials. I hope that we haven"t confused some new officials who may not be ready for the concept of advantage disadvantage. I also hope that we have sparked some thought about advantage disadvantage and the spirit and intent of the rules for veteran officials and for young officials who may be ready to move up to the next level. As always, I will continue to look forward to your posts and threads.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
|
|
Sun Jun 18, 2006, 11:11am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
