How often do you see this???
 

4:30 remaining in the 1st quarter of the Heat/Mavs game tonight (Game 3). Dwayne Wade gets a pass right under his basket, reverse dunks it, holds the rim and lifts his knees. Ref T's him up for it!

I can't remember the last time I saw a T for hanging on the rim in an NBA game. It happens all the time and is NEVER called. But in the Finals, they decide they have to grab it? I'm scratching my head over that one, to be honest.

2:05 left in the first period, Wade is called for traveling!

anyone else
 

who else is watching the game and this board at the same time?

Sounds like Wade pissed somebody off :D

The travel was a pretty obvious one. He ended his dribble then jumped to pass, but didn't have anybody open. So he dropped the ball to the floor and grabbed it again.

But I think you're right; he made somebody mad to draw that T.

I'm watching Game 3, this forum, and the Sox/Twinkies game. It's 1-1 in the top of the 9th.

9:35 left in the 3rd quarter, a carrying violation against Dallas. Somebody tell these guys to enforce the rules tonight? LOL

They called 5 travels in games 1 and 2 also...It's the old veterans making those calls. Also have seen lots of off-ball offensive foul calls. It's a breath of fresh air.

If you actually watch an NBA game, you would see a lot of travels being called. I do not see any less traveling called in NBA games as I have seen in a D1 game. I have watched just one quarter of other playoff games and not only was traveling called, but it was called several times in just a few possessions. I think some of you are buying into what the media tells you than seeing the game for yourself.

Peace

I don't understand the current preoccupation that officials have now about emphasizing travelling, carrying and off ball fouls such as marginal bad screens. These violations are game interrupters that put the focus of the game squarely on the officials. Travelling and carrying should be called when obvious and when they cause an advantage IMO. If you gotta replay the tape 5 times to see the travel, it's not a travel. If a player palms the ball while dribbling in the open court, why stop the game and call it? Also, officials who become "travel officials" are so focused on the violation that they cannot effectively referee the defense. Call the obvious, call what matters, it just leads to a much better game.

As for the off ball offensive fouls, same principle. If there's an advantage, it's obvious or non-basketball, get it, if it's marginal, or there's doubt, why stop the game? If these fouls aren't obvious, the game will get out of hand very quickly, putting a negative focus squarely on the officials. For the record, every one of the NBA off ball fouls/travels were obvious and had to be gotten, they were quality calls.

To sum up, and I know a lot of people will disagree, the emphasis should not be the number of off ball calls or violations, but the quality of those calls, especially considering the context of the game. Too many people wrongly justify weak calls by claiming to "preserve the integrity of the game." Hogwash, consider the context of the game and the spirit and intent of the rules and call the obvious, it leads to a better game and less trouble.

Maybe traveling, carrying and off ball fouls get called because they're <b>rules</b>. Maybe they also get called because all three have been and still are concerns of both the NFHS <b>and</b> the NCAA; all have been repeated POE's in the last few years. Maybe they're finally getting called too in the NBA because viewers are sick of watching streetball with no rules and the ratings were going south. People, including posters here, weren't complaining about "marginal" calls in the NBA; they were complaining about very <b>obvious</b> and <b>blatant</b> calls that were being ignored. I'm in that camp btw.

Advantage/disadvantage was never meant to apply to violations. You're not describing "game interrupters"; you're describing rec league and AAU ball at it's finest.

And, as for putting the focus of the game squarely on officials, personally I'll take the official who's got the balls to make a tough call over the one who doesn't have that particular attribute. An official who is <b>not</b> afraid to make the tough call is naturally gonna get some attention for making a tough call.....and that attention doesn't both them one bit.

This series has seemed closely called from game one. The players were upset at first, but they have adjusted, as smart players will. The NBA thinks it is on the world stage now and muat have wanted the officials to follow the rulebook closely so the world perceives an evenly officiated series. I watch NBA throughout the year and this is the best officiating I've seen in years.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world is watching the World Cup, so the NBA is wasting it's time.

The fans are seeing the NBA game at it's finest. If you don't like what you see, don't bother tuning in to the NBA anymore, because it don't get any better. I'm enjoying watching the Dwyane Wade legend grow, the Shaq legend reach its denouement, and Dirk Nowitzki making a bid for the Hall of Fame.

Chuck:

Shaq was called for traveling in the second game too.

MTD, Sr.

SMEngmann
 

Extremely well stated!!

First off, let me say that in principle I agree with the gist of your post...my one disagreement however is that the fouls off-ball must be "obvious" in order to call them. Obvious to whom? There are any number of things which will not be seen by the coach/fans, but absolutely have to be called in order to protect the game and the players and to keep things from getting out of hand. Example - HS summer league Varsity Boys last Saturday - forward for white team being blocked out quite nicely by forward from red team decides to pinch red forward in the side of the stomache...I can pretty much guarantee you that I was the only one who saw it, called it, and when the coach does the "What did he do?" routine, told him exactly what happened and he sat the kid down. That was not "obvious" but it definitely had to be called...so I think we need to be careful about the phrase "call the obvious fouls" to the exclusion of all other fouls...

Welcome back.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=19957

Always glad to read your views on officiating....:D

I was wondering what the heck made you dig up that old thread. . .

He's got a mind like a (rusty?) steel trap to remember that name.

Kinda tough to forget a guy that dumped all over the lowly high school officials in one of his posts, but then admitted in another post that he's only in his 5th year of officiating. I'm still waiting for him to confirm what level he's currently working at. Has to be <b>at least</b> D1 if not the NBA.

And his initial post and advice on the art of game management as applied to coaches was a good 'un too....:)

Once you brought up the old thread, I remembered his comments as well. I had just put him/her on my "mental block list". I would be curious to hear how he came to adopt his philosophies; surely he must've been mentored by some great names.

You make some very good points here. When I say obvious, I mean obvious to the tape. In other words, when they show the replay, that foul better be there, or it had better have had an influence on the play, or when the coach reviews the tape the next day, he should not have to rewind 5 times to find the foul. In the case of the pinching incident, that's a must get too in my opinion because it's non basketball and it's very easy to explain to the coach. Of course if you've stopped the game numerous times with calls that aren't obvious and don't make sense, it might cause you to lose your credibility with the coach and have him roll his eyes when you explain what happened.

Sure traveling and carrying are rules and you say advantage/disadvantage doesn't apply to violations, but how many of us actually apply the letter of the rule everytime when it comes to violations, and what do we think of officials who do? Who's gonna call 3 seconds everytime when a player is not involved in the play. Perfect example is during an interrupted dribble the count remains in effect, so what about the guy who makes the 3 seconds call when the ball is loose near the division line? Another example is NFHS rule 9.3.2 or "leaving the court for unauthorized reasons." Correct me if I'm wrong but this was a POE a year or two ago and they wanted Ts. I once saw someone call that one 4 times in a game, and all four times the player did leave the court and technically the official was right, but the coaches had this guy's backside and nobody knew what in the hell he was calling. Is that a guy who has the balls to make the right call, or a guy with bad judgement? Traveling and carrying, in my opinion should be officiated in the same way, the calls should be the obvious ones and the ones that create an advantage and we should err on the side of calling fewer travels and definitely shouldn't be out looking to call travels and carries and getting the ones that you have to look at 10 times on the replay to determine if it's the right call.

As for the off ball fouls NFHS rule 4.27 indicates that there can be incidental contact and 4.27.3 specifies that contact that does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal maneuvers is incidental. In other words if it doesn't affect the play, isn't non basketball and isn't obviously rough, it shouldn't be called.

Calling things that aren't obvious or aren't there really hurts your credibility in my opinion. You are needlessly stopping the game, interrupting the flow and being an irritant to the players and coaches. Just my opinion though.

I don't have a problem with that at all. I do have a problem when you advocate <b>not</b> calling things that <b>are</b> there though. We're just gonna haveta disagree on that one, I guess.

We have to be careful when we use phrases like "advantage/disadvantage", "call the obvious", and "not having an effect on the play". I still see plays where a defender gets leveled with an elbow on an illegal screen while the ball is on the other side of the floor, and the official lets it go because "it didn't have an effect on the play", or "no one else saw it". In other words, they were too lazy to make the obvious call, and used those phrases as an excuse. How do we know it didn't have an effect? Should we wait until we see the offensive player wipe off that screen, receive the pass, and then make the open shot? And, if they don't, there's no advantage? Of course not; the player with the elbow gained the unfair advantage by causing the other player to move off their route due to that contact. When you start applying adv/disadv to violations however, I think you'll start more problems than you will avoid. What about the guard in the front court, seeing the defense sitting in a zone, steps back while dribbling to call a play, and while unguarded, steps with the back of their heel on the midcourt line. No other player is within 20 feet. Do you let the backcourt violation go? What do you tell the other coach who also sees it? I would call that violation; there are officials that would say it didn't have an effect because they weren't being guarded. I would say the player had an unfair advantage by using more of the playing surface than they were allowed by rule.

Again, we use many of these phrases all the time, and most of us know what they mean and to apply them. There are the officials that mis-use them to justify not making calls. And I'm kind of in the camp that feels adv/disadv applies more to fouls than violations.

I agree with you, advantage/disadvantage applies far more to fouls than violations, and I'm not advocating ignoring the obvious stuff. I think the point that I am trying to make is that we shouldn't narrowly focus on getting every single violation, or in other words, go out there looking for travels.

In terms of the illegal screen you mentioned, that's not what I meant by "no effect on the play." If there's an elbow or a player gets clearly chucked off his path, that's a foul and should be called, regardless of it the ball's on the other side. Retaliation and problems with the game will follow if you don't get that. I was talking more about marginal screens that don't really impact the defender's path. Another good example is handchecking, I think we look for handchecks and kill plays way too early by not giving the offense a chance to play through and make a play.

My point isn't that we should ignore off ball fouls or violations, but simply that we shouldn't be out looking for them. Just call them when they're obvious and they present themselves and/or cause an advantage/disadvantage. While there are many officials who will use the phrases as excuses for missing a call, there are just as many who ruin games by hunting for and finding an excuse to blow the whistle needlessly and becoming irritants. That is why I don't agree with the philosophy of looking to "get" the travels and carries but subscribe to the philosophy that we should get them when they're obvious.

Ok, I guess we're not too far apart. I think we both want the same thing, on both sides - you don't want too much called just for the sake of calling things "by the book", and I don't want too little called just for the sake of "advantage/disadvantage". I guess it's knowing how to tread in that area in between that separates the good from the great.

Very eloquently stated M&M.

It is obvious to me that legal gaurding position is a concept that does not translate to the NBA. This frustrates me. Do you agree? Disagree?

I absolutely agree that it frustrates you. I disagree if you are claiming that LGP is not understood or applied in the NBA.

I also agree the T for hanging on the rim was a "reach"......

Advantage / Disadvantage
 

The Tower Philosophy

The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles:

"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.'

It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows:

'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 rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Left out a few things, didn't you? :)

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, <b>but NEVER to ignore an obvious infraction</b>".

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 <b>not</b> for officials just learning the game. It should only be used by experienced, capable officials that possess a <b>thorough knowledge</b> 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, <b>not</b> violations.

That's a great link, JR. Thanks

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.

I got an idea, Billy.

Why don't <b>you</b> e-mail Jackie Loube and ask <b>him</b> if <b>he</b> thinks that the Tower Philosophy should apply to traveling and palming? He is <b>your</b> 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.

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.

JR, I guess that means BillyMac is afraid to pose your question to Mr. Loube. :rolleyes:

Billy, you're the one making the statements. It's up to <b>you</b> to back them up with .

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 <b>you</b> 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.

Yeah, kinda looks like he's ducking asking that question. I am kinda interested myself in what Mr. Loube's response will be. Still waiting for Chuck to chime in on this one too, with his take- either personally or as an IAABO rules interpreter.

Chuck, does the Tower Philosophy mean that advantage/disadvantage should apply to violations like traveling or palming? Does it also apply to <b>all</b> violations, as BillyMac is teaching? Or just a specific violation or two- like maybe 3-seconds? Just wondering what your thoughts are....

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.

There's <b>your</b> statement, Billy. All I want to know is whether Jackie Loube, your IAABO rules guru, agrees with <b>you</b> and <b>your</b> IAABO association's statement above.

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 <b>all</b> 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.

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?"

That's all I wanted to know, Billy. You have now confirmed that the <b>official</b> IAABO philosophy is that <b>all</b> violations, such as traveling, palming, over-and-back, kicking the ball, free-throw violations, out-of-bounds, three seconds, ten seconds, 5-seconds, BI, goal tending, etc. should be called by advantage/disadvantage principles. Correct? As I said, that's all I wanted to know in the first place, Billy- where IAABO <b>officially</b> stood as an organization in it's interpretation of the Tower Philosophy.

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 <b>generally</b> does <b>NOT</b> apply to violations. Note that is my <b>opinion</b>. Iow, I don't agree with the official IAABO <b>opinion</b> 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 <b>arguably</b> 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 <b>never</b> 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 <b>can't</b> 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 <b>had</b> 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 <b>doesn't</b> include the NFHS rule book. You're giving <b>your</b> 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 <b>own</b> opinion on this also.

Chuck? MTD Sr.? Have you guys got any thoughts on this from a personal or IAABO standpoint?

Sorry I didn't chime in on this sooner. I was out on Long Island all day yesterday for a couple of games. First game was at 9 am, and it's a 3-hour drive for me -- assuming no traffic.

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.

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.

Chuck, just to satisfy my inquisitive inner self(otherwise know as being a nosy sumb!tch), I would appreciate it if you would do so.

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

1) Billy, I still think that the Tower Philosophy was <b>never</b> 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 <b>have</b> applied advantage/disadvantage principles to <b>some</b> 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 <b>should</b> be called, and advantage/disadvantage <b>shouldn't</b> 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 <b>what</b> 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 <b>must</b> be called <b>always</b> though- examples OOB, backcourt, etc. The problem in my mind still is where do you draw the line when it comes to advantage/disadvantage <i>vis a vis</i> 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 <b>always</b> 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 <b>always</b> 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.

Never Got Unprofessional
 

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.

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.

Go Sox
 

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....? :confused:

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

MTD, Sr.