Advantage/Disadvantage

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Comes back to "How can you call it different at different points in the game?" - the rules either say to call it ot not to. That's what I'm asking. Do the rules support a call which is advantageous to the team, but not to the player? (Obviously, the player was fouled, but it was to the team's advantage to keep playing - this is the situation).

Some people call this game management - i feel it is an excuse not to call things because you don't want to call them, for whatever reason.

I don't think you are really asking anything. You are getting some really solid answers and keep disagreeing. I think you are trying to make a point and are posing it as a question. You want every foul called by the book. Go ahead and ref that way if you really feel that is the way it should be done. I wouldn't do it that way.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

I don't think you are really asking anything. You are getting some really solid answers and keep disagreeing. I think you are trying to make a point and are posing it as a question. You want every foul called by the book. Go ahead and ref that way if you really feel that is the way it should be done. I wouldn't do it that way.

So you're just going to call what you want to call, regardless of the rules? Isn't this kind of against the point of having rules?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

So you're just going to call what you want to call, regardless of the rules? Isn't this kind of against the point of having rules?

You're ignoring 4-27-3 in spite of its clarity on this exact point.

[PIAA REF]

I feel that drinkeii just wants to start an argument. He doesn't want to listen to our answers. I say just give him more rope.... you guys know what will happen.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

I feel that drinkeii just wants to start an argument. He doesn't want to listen to our answers. I say just give him more rope.... you guys know what will happen.

I'm looking for an explanation, other than the excuses I listed in an earlier post. I'm not looking to argue. The answers have all said "We're going to do what we want" or some variation on this, in complete disregard for what the rules actually say. Explain to me what justifies your decision to not call things because you "don't want to" or "don't feel its justified", even though the rules say you should. Because it makes a good game? Not part of my job. Because I feel that's what is best? Why have rules, if I get to make them up as I go? Because the coaches/parents/players want/don't want it called? Not my consideration - My job is keep the kids safe and administer the rules.

Isn't that all our job?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

The answers have all said "We're going to do what we want" or some variation on this, in complete disregard for what the rules actually say.

If you're talking about the topic of this thread, then this is wrong. Again, see rule 4-27-3.
If you're talking about traveling in a 5th grade girls game.... good grief.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

My job is keep the kids safe and administer the rules.

Isn't that all our job?

You're half right. Our job is to administer the rules. Keeping them safe is a product of that, but it is not an actual consideration.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

I'm looking for an explanation, other than the excuses I listed in an earlier post. I'm not looking to argue. The answers have all said "We're going to do what we want" or some variation on this, in complete disregard for what the rules actually say. Explain to me what justifies your decision to not call things because you "don't want to" or "don't feel its justified", even though the rules say you should. Because it makes a good game? Not part of my job. Because I feel that's what is best? Why have rules, if I get to make them up as I go? Because the coaches/parents/players want/don't want it called? Not my consideration - My job is keep the kids safe and administer the rules.

Isn't that all our job?

SECTION 27 INCIDENTAL CONTACT

Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul.

ART. 1 . . . The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. When 10 players are moving rapidly in a limited area, some contact is certain to occur.

ART. 2 . . . Contact which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive movements, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe.

ART. 3 . . . Similarly, contact which does not hinder the opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

ART. 4 . . . A player who is screened within his/her visual field is expected to avoid contact with the screener by stopping or going around the screener. In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener, and such contact is to be ruled incidental contact, provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball.

ART. 5 . . . If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.


What part of that is unclear?

It's in the freaking rule book, nobody has said we are calling what we want regardless of the rule...the rule clearly states that contact that does not hinder, IOW, does not cause a disadvantage, is not to be considered a foul.

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Explain to me what justifies your decision to not call things because you "don't want to" or "don't feel its justified", even though the rules say you should. Because it makes a good game? Not part of my job. Because I feel that's what is best? Why have rules, if I get to make them up as I go? Because the coaches/parents/players want/don't want it called? Not my consideration - My job is keep the kids safe and administer the rules.

Isn't that all our job?

One word justifies it - Judgement. That's a major portion of what we get paid the big bucks for.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Explain to me what justifies your decision to not call things because you "don't want to" or "don't feel its justified", even though the rules say you should.

Your basic premise is completely wrong from the git-go. The rules do NOT say that you should call a foul just because there is contact. A foul, by rules definition, is illegal contact with an opponent. It is always up to the calling official on each and every play to judge whether the contact is legal or illegal. The rules book tries to help our judgment skills by giving us examples of legal and illegal contact.

All you've been saying is that contact is illegal according to your judgment. Other officials obviously may judge differently, using their judgment.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Your basic premise is completely wrong from the git-go. The rules do NOT say that you should call a foul just because there is contact. A foul, by rules definition, is illegal contact with an opponent. It is always up to the calling official on each and every play to judge whether the contact is legal or illegal. The rules book tries to help our judgment skills by giving us examples of legal and illegal contact.

All you've been saying is that contact is illegal according to your judgment. Other officials obviously may judge differently, using their judgment.

And I am not saying to call EVERY contact as a foul. I'm saying that what people judge to be not a foul as incidental contact isn't, in many cases - it's a case of the ref not wanting to call that foul.

If I have my hand on the hip of a dribbler, and I'm attempting to guide his motion, and do so, i'm fouling according to the rules. Do most refs call this as a hand check? No - most would look for more than a slight effect - applying that judgement. What if they shove? What if they get a really nice block, but foul the player after the block? Many would say "oh well, it was a nice block, i'm not calling the foul afterwards because it looked so nice"- they may not say that, but that's the explanation most give if you ask them afterwards why they didn't call it.

I understand the thing about not calling things which are incidental. I think we're judging way too many things as incidental.

And we're ignoring things which are blank and white. There are officials who won't make a 3 seconds call, and are proud of that fact. Where in the rules does it say we should ignore that? It says when to and when not to call it. No judgement involved.

In my original example (well, a few posts in) - a player has his legs taken out from under him. It is clearly a foul - B ran into A trying to steal the ball, interfere with a pass, etc - but he clearly initiated contact which was NOT incidental. A2 gets the pass and puts it in the basket. Do we call the original foul, or allow the basket to stand? Do the rules support ignoring fouls like that (or considering them an application of "advantage"), if the team as a whole benefits? It's a yes or no question. In soccer, (and yes, I know it is a different sport) - we acknowledge a foul - it was a foul, and we specifically noted it as such by applying advantage - and allow play to continue even though there was a clear foul. I'm saying - do we do the same thing in basketball, but not "acknowledge" the foul? You're saying it isn't a foul. I'm saying it is - do we ignore it in favor of the advantage gained by the team by completing the pass and making the basket, or call the foul?

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

So you're just going to call what you want to call, regardless of the rules? Isn't this kind of against the point of having rules?

And now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not going to become overly officious. There is no point to be a legalist. Every judicial system has a place for grace, mercy, and common sense. If a guy is coming up in the backcourt all by himself and palms the ball...I am not going to call it. If the same guy then fakes to the right on his defender and then palms the ball to bring it back across his defender to gain an advantage, then I will call it.

However, if you want every law enforced just as it is written, that is your right. Just don't complain if you ever get a ticket for going 31 in a 30 mph zone.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Big2Cat

And now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not going to become overly officious. There is no point to be a legalist. Every judicial system has a place for grace, mercy, and common sense. If a guy is coming up in the backcourt all by himself and palms the ball...I am not going to call it. If the same guy then fakes to the right on his defender and then palms the ball to bring it back across his defender to gain an advantage, then I will call it.

However, if you want every law enforced just as it is written, that is your right. Just don't complain if you ever get a ticket for going 31 in a 30 mph zone.

You picked the wrong person for that - I would not complain. I broke the law, and have no problem with accepting the consequences of that choice. But what about a sports example - they only stepped a little on the out of bounds line, not a lot. Millimeter? Half inch? Where do we draw the line? If they step on the line, they're out of bounds. If they break the rules, they broke the rules. I don't remember grace, mercy, or common sense being referred to in the rules. Otherwise - well, it was a beautiful play, but you traveled - guess I'll ignore the travel in favor of the beautiful play. Find support for that in the rules...

The biggest problem with kids (in or out of sports) - they're unwilling to accept consequences for their actions. Correction - they're willing to accept positive consequences for their choices which generate them - but not negative ones. It's always someone else's fault. But again, another topic.

[Big2Cat]

That's fine then, be a legalist. If you feel your job is to punish kids for every violation (as if they are breaking the law) so they accept responsibility, that is your choice. If you want to make a point to coaches that you know the rules and are going to call everyone, that is fine also. However, don't be surprised when most others decide not to and go with the advantage/disadvantage and ignore incidental contact.

What is it you really want? You want everyone to call every rule by the book. It isn't going to happen. You could try to form your own basketball utopian colony and do it that way, but most of us know what happens to the Waldens of the world.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

If they break the rules, they broke the rules.

And it's a judgment call if someone actually broke a rule when it comes to fouls. That judgment comprises judging whether legal or illegal contact occurred. If you deem it legal contact, then NO rule has been broken.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding some very basic officiating tenets.