Advantage/Disadvantage

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

David, you're on another one of these crusades that started back in November. ( Coverage Areas ) We're not calling what we want, regardless of the rules. We're trying to judge whether the contact gives either player an advantage that is unintended by the rules, which is what the rules tell us to do.

Not all contact is a foul. Not even all significant contact is a foul. You don't seem to like that reality. That's what the rules tell us. That is the rule. Maybe your idea of an advantage is significantly different from others on this forum. That's possible. But what's not possible is to try to carry the philosophy "A foul is a foul is a foul" onto the court. Because in real life, that just ain't so.

A foul in a 4th grade game may be incidental contact in a high school game. Incidental contact on the big man in the post may be a foul when it happens to the shooting guard.

You seem to want a one-size-fits-all, black-and-white philosophy; and there just isn't one. You have to judge each contact situation on its own.

The problem is that the rules don't support this. I agree that not all contact is a foul. However, if we keep going to the traveling (violation) or out of bounds, as I brought up, they are completely black and white, and your choices to call or not call them based on your personal feelings about the level of the game are not consistent with the rules.

Real life - the rules are defined. They are supposed to be administered or enforced. Refs choose not to do this. This affects the game. Positive or negative? Most would say positive, but I feel this is a negative impact. I'd rather have a ref call everything than to pick and choose what they felt they wanted to call that particular game. How do I explain to the kids I coach, when I'm coaching "Well, that's the rule, but they're ignoring it today" - that creates a disadvantage for teams which do play within the rules.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

The problem is that the rules don't support this.

David, you're so wrong, it's not even funny. The rule has been posted for you more than once in this thread. The rules COMPLETELY support what you quoted from my previous post. The rules tell us to judge each contact situation by whether an illegal advantage is gained.

However, if we keep going to the traveling (violation) or out of bounds, as I brought up,

Your original post was about contact situations. If you now want to discuss violations, that's a different conversation. You can't just change the parameters of the discussion because you're losing the debate on the original point.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

David, you're so wrong, it's not even funny. The rule has been posted for you more than once in this thread. The rules COMPLETELY support what you quoted from my previous post. The rules tell us to judge each contact situation by whether an illegal advantage is gained.

Your original post was about contact situations. If you now want to discuss violations, that's a different conversation. You can't just change the parameters of the discussion because you're losing the debate on the original point.

Several people brought up calling travels in a 5th grade game and such - not me - I'm responding to that as it was brought up.

[blindzebra]

Why do I get the feeling someone got reamed on an evaluation for game interrupters and a lack of a patient whistle, so they feel the need to justify their lack of judgment by finding someone who agrees with them?

My how disappointed they must feel about now.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by blindzebra

Why do I get the feeling someone got reamed on an evaluation for game interrupters and a lack of a patient whistle, so they feel the need to justify their lack of judgment by finding someone who agrees with them?

My how disappointed they must feel about now.

Um - nope.

Not even close. Never happened to me. And I'll tell you what - if I get reamed for following the rules, I doubt i'll stay silent on that point.

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Um - nope.

Not even close. Never happened to me. And I'll tell you what - if I get reamed for following the rules, I doubt i'll stay silent on that point.

Ummm, but you wouldn't be following the rules...


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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

The problem is that the rules don't support this. I agree that not all contact is a foul. However, if we keep going to the traveling (violation) or out of bounds, as I brought up, they are completely black and white, and your choices to call or not call them based on your personal feelings about the level of the game are not consistent with the rules.

Real life - the rules are defined. They are supposed to be administered or enforced. Refs choose not to do this. This affects the game. Positive or negative? Most would say positive, but I feel this is a negative impact. I'd rather have a ref call everything than to pick and choose what they felt they wanted to call that particular game. How do I explain to the kids I coach, when I'm coaching "Well, that's the rule, but they're ignoring it today" - that creates a disadvantage for teams which do play within the rules.

In general, violations are black-and-white. A player either steps on the boundary line, or doesn't.

Fouls are much more grey. The official must judge not only that there was contact, but that the contact was illegal and caused a disadvantage (that might not be apparent immediately, even though the whistle should come fairly quickly).

Don't confuse the two.

I'm not sure it's much different in soccer (although I admit I know almost nothing about it). During a throw-in, if the player throws the ball without both feet on the grouond, it's an immediate violation. NO grey area; no judgement (other than on the facts) required. If a player is tackled and falls to the ground without the defender contacting the ball, then play on if the pass was already made that leads to a break-away (similar to your basketball example).

In general, it's unwise to attempt to bring the rules and philosophy of one game to another. The written words need to be interpreted according to the specific desires of that sport.