Advantage/Disadvantage

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

How do they learn what they're doing wrong if they don't get called for it? I don't have any problem calling these kinds of things - and many coaches have actually complimented me on it because they are trying to teach their kids the right way to do things. The refs who ignore things like that teach the kids bad habits.

And yes, some coaches complain that i'm not letting them play. I always say "My job is to keep the kids safe, and administer the rules - if the kids play safe (for their level), and they play within the rules, they get plenty of game flow - if they don't, the game flow isn't there because of their style of play"

The more and more I read this board, the more and more I do not want to ever work another lower level game. It is not my job to teach anyone anything. My job is to call the game as it relates to my judgment and my experience. I am not calling every minor violation in a lower level game any more than I would not call that way at a college game. It is the job of the players to adjust to what I call.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Then explain to me why you have rule makers or POE's saying "Call this, every time" - and interpreters and assignors saying "Don't call this" or "Call it this way (in a way which contradicts the way the rule maker or POE says), and it's wrong or looked down upon to do what the rules say, but not what the assignors or interpreters say?

(and don't just come back with "Do whatever you want - you will anyway", or anything like that. I'm looking for a reason why we feel that this is appropriate to have this contradition occur - rule says one thing, assignor/interpreter says another - shouldn't we be consistent?)

I work for supervisors, not a rulebook. If the people I work for say something about how I'm officiaiting then I'll change. If my more successful colleagues see something I'm doing wrong, I'll change it. Otherwise I'm going to continue to officiate according to my feel for the game. My feel for the game includes what I've learned from the Officials' Manual and what is prescribed by the rulebook and casebook. My feel is also based on the teams and level I am officiating.

I'm a very consistent official. Coaches and players don't have to guess how I'm going to call the game. You don't give coaches and players enough credit. They learn to adjust to whomever is officiating the game, at least the successfull teams do.

Like I asked before, tell me how this conversation has gone with guys in your area who have made it to the D1 level. Do they agree with you?

[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.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The more and more I read this board, the more and more I do not want to ever work another lower level game. It is not my job to teach anyone anything. My job is to call the game as it relates to my judgment and my experience. I am not calling every minor violation in a lower level game any more than I would not call that way at a college game. It is the job of the players to adjust to what I call.

Peace

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

Another user posted the same thing - smart players and coaches adjust to what is being called. They shouldn't have to - they should be able to play within the defined rules of the game, and not worry about whether something is getting called or not that day - it should be called or not called, as the rules state.

I am an assistant coach for a CYO basketball team right now. Our team plays relatively clean (they're not angels, but they play relatively clean). 4 situations occurred this season:

1) Us vs Rough team with refs who call very little - we were at a major disadvantage
2) Us vs Rough team with refs who called by the book - we were at a major advantage
3) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who call very little - fair game
4) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who called by the book - fair game

Why should what the refs choose to call affect a game that much?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

You tell me where in the actual "Rules", there is a reference to advantage/disadvantage. It is added in at the end as a consideration.

See page 10 of the rulebook under The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules---A player or 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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[zakman2005000]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

Another user posted the same thing - smart players and coaches adjust to what is being called. They shouldn't have to - they should be able to play within the defined rules of the game, and not worry about whether something is getting called or not that day - it should be called or not called, as the rules state.

I am an assistant coach for a CYO basketball team right now. Our team plays relatively clean (they're not angels, but they play relatively clean). 4 situations occurred this season:

1) Us vs Rough team with refs who call very little - we were at a major disadvantage
2) Us vs Rough team with refs who called by the book - we were at a major advantage
3) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who call very little - fair game
4) Us vs Relatively Clean team with refs who called by the book - fair game

Why should what the refs choose to call affect a game that much?

Without trying to sound condescending, feel free to have robots officiate your game because that's what it sounds like you want. No two officials are going to judge the same action identically.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Why should the players have to adjust to what "You" call? Shoudn't they play within the rules, and when they don't, expect to get called for fouls or violations? This is my point - they shouldn't have to adjust to you - they should adjust to the rules. They shouldn't have to change how they play game to game to fit with the ref they are playing with that day.

They do not have to adjust to me. If they do not adjust to me, they do not have to hire me. I call the game based on my interpretation of the rules and my personal judgment. I work with a lot of other officials that share similar opinions on judgment and interpretation that I do. If they do not like the job I am doing, then there are plenty of officials out there they can hire. Also the rules do not call themselves. Officials call the rules. I see a lot of officials that “call the game by the rules” as you said, but their judgment is suspect at best. Players and coaches have to adjust to them as well.

Peace

[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.

[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.