How often do you see this???

[ChuckElias]

Email sent. I'll let you know if/when I get a reply.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) 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.

2) 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.

1) Billy, I still think that the Tower Philosophy was never intended to apply to violations. The Tower Philosophy is basically just an explanation- and an excellent one imo also- about the principles and use of advantage/disadvantage; it is as valid now as it was 50 years ago. It tells us how to view contact situations and how to call fouls by using our attained/acquired judgement and our own personal opinion as to whether an advantage was gained or not through that contact. Now, over the years it has evolved that officials certainly have applied advantage/disadvantage principles to some certain violations also. Three seconds, of course, is the primary example. Another current example now maybe might be the practice of not calling a closely-guarded violation if the defender is right at the limit of being 6 feet away and is not guarding aggressively. For years, officials were also ignoring the thrower stepping over the line on a throw-in after a made basket if there was no defensive pressure. The problem is that the FED is fairly consistent through POE's and case plays that these type of violations should be called, and advantage/disadvantage shouldn't be used. See POE #1 in the 2004-05 rulebook re: closely guarded-- and casebook play 9.2.5 re: throw-in violations. Iow, it kinda comes down to what violations are OK or not to be called under advantage/disadvantage principles. And the answer to that is.....I personally can't answer that unless I'm actually in the game looking at the violation. I just kinda call what seems right to me under the particular circumstance. Under a different circumstance, the exact same play might be called differently. Some violations imo must be called always though- examples OOB, backcourt, etc. The problem in my mind still is where do you draw the line when it comes to advantage/disadvantage vis a vis all violations. I honestly don't think that you can say that advantage/disadvantage should apply to some violations only unless you are prepared to always call or not call that violation without exception when it does occur. Iow, if you see a palm or travel occur with no defensive pressure apparent, you should always ignore that violation as per your Association's teachings. Again, jmo, but I just don't think that's the right way to officiate a game.

I don't know whether that adds anything to the current discussion, but I just wanted to add that.

2) Geeze, Billy, I certainly wasn't aware that I was being "personal" and "unprofessional" in our discussion. Disagreeable-- certainly- I'll plead guilty to that. I disagreed with some of what you were saying . Still do, but you already know that. Would you please point out some examples of my "unprofessionalism" to me? If so, I would certainly then like to apologize. Seriously.

[BillyMac]

Jurassic Referee:

You recently asked, "Would you please point out some examples of my "unprofessionalism" to me?" Your posts on this thread never reached the point of being unprofessional, as many other threads and posts by other Forum members have become over the past year or so that I've been a member of this Forum. To quote myself, "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."

Please note that I said "we" which includes me possibly becoming unprofessional. Some of your statements that led me to believe that this was becoming a personal matter between you and me and not a matter for all Forum members include:

"Left out a few things, didn't you?" "Here's the complete article, Bill, minus the...uh...editing". I know that I was being too senstive on this, but I thought that you may have been implying that I purposely left out parts of my handout to benefit my point of view. Unfortunately, I didn't know the source of the handout, but I do know that I didn't edit it in any way. I really didn't appreciate the "uh" in your statement, but again, maybe I was being too sensitive.

"Again, forget about 3-seconds" In this case I took the time to type out a specific play where the concept of advantage disadvantage may have been used on a violation. I was upset that you seemed to just ignore my example. I would have preferred that you responded to that specific play in some way, other than just seeming to ignore me like I was some kind of uninformed coach or uniformed fan using this Official Forum website.

"Yeah, kinda looks like he's ducking asking that question". "Why are you ducking answering it?" "Billy, you're the one making the statements. It's up to you to back them up with". Again, I'm sure that I was too sensitive about this but I thought that since your statements came first that you should have backed up your statements before I tried to back up mine.The word "duck" implies that I was evading the question, a negative conatation in my mind, when I was simply waiting for you to answer first. But I also used the word "ducking", so I'm as much at fault as you. That's why I said "we". In this case it was me who may have been becoming unprofessional.

No apology neccessary. Again, I will continue to look forward to your threads and posts.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No apology neccessary.

Billy, I will try to be more straight-forward with you in the future and leave out any extraneous comments that might be misconstrued. I thought my comments were harmless personally. but I also certainly never intended to act unprofessionally towards a fellow official.

Of course, if you're a BoSox fan, all bets are off.

[BillyMac]

Red Sox Fan since 1967

Favorite Player: Carl Yastrzemski

Odd Fact: Not A Yankee Hater, Grew Up In New Haven, CT Area And Watched Yankees On WPIX TV Channel 11 New York

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I got an idea, Billy.

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.

It does not matter whether one is a member of IAABO or not. The Tower Philosophy applies to fouls and fouls only, not to violations. I do not know of any IAABO Board Interpreter or IAABO publication that advocates applying the Tower Philosophy to violations, considereing the fact the Oswald Tower was a member of IAABO if my memory is correct.

MTD, Sr.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

It does not matter whether one is a member of IAABO or not. The Tower Philosophy applies to fouls and fouls only, not to violations. I do not know of any IAABO Board Interpreter or IAABO publication that advocates applying the Tower Philosophy to violations, considereing the fact the Oswald Tower was a member of IAABO if my memory is correct.

MTD, Sr.

So...the reason you don't call 3 seconds more often is....?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

So...the reason you don't call 3 seconds more often is....?

I haven't called three seconds since 1965 and I started officiating basketball in 1971.

MTD, Sr.