Advantage/Disadvantage

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by zakman2005000

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.

I don't believe this is even possible. I do wish, however, that officials would call more by the rules than their personal feelings or philosophy. Why have rules if you're not going to administer them?

[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.

[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.

[amcginthy]

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.

I'm a coach... I teach my girls, as EVERY coach should, that each game is different and each set of refs sees things different... as long as the ref is consistent in the game - from quarter to quarter, and half to half - as a coach - I have zero problems...

Now, like I said - I'm not a ref, But I'd bet that even with my inexperience, if I were officiating a game by your definition - I could call a foul / violation everytime down the court - you can't call EVERYHTING...

For goodness sake - this is why the advantage / disadvantage guidance is there - everyone interprets things different...

It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer... you'd be very surprised to find that laws (otherwise known as rules) are interpreted differently than lawyer to lawyer, judge to judge, and jury to jury...

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

But shouldn't they already be adjusted to playing by the rules (or outside the rules and getting called for it)? Why should they have to change game to game how they play based on which officials are there and which aren't, and what rules they choose to enforce that day?

It shouldn't be an adjustment - they should already be playing based on the rules of the game. By not calling them consistently (and adding in "judgements" which are personal, and not in the rules), we are forcing them to change how they play from game to game.

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by amcginthy

I'm a coach... I teach my girls, as EVERY coach should, that each game is different and each set of refs sees things different... as long as the ref is consistent in the game - from quarter to quarter, and half to half - as a coach - I have zero problems...

Now, like I said - I'm not a ref, But I'd bet that even with my inexperience, if I were officiating a game by your definition - I could call a foul / violation everytime down the court - you can't call EVERYHTING...

For goodness sake - this is why the advantage / disadvantage guidance is there - everyone interprets things different...

It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer... you'd be very surprised to find that laws (otherwise known as rules) are interpreted differently than lawyer to lawyer, judge to judge, and jury to jury...

Which explains why we have such a messed up legal system. The law is the law - don't break it, and you shouldn't get in trouble - break it, and you should. Even exceptions should be (and usually are) codified, such as killing someone to keep from being killed not being as bad.

If we can't call everything, why have all those rules? Just throw out the ones that we shouldn't call.. oh wait - that's my whole premise - people do this, which affects the game, and shouldn't.

[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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

They should expect that their coach understands "the game" and is able to adjust to all facets of "the game" as they arise to help them make the proper adjustment to the game that they are playing.

Including the performance of the officials.

[Raymond]

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.

You are taking this to the extreme. Who in here has said they are going to chuck the rulebook and call the game anyway they please?

We learn as we gain experience. And 99% of the experienced officials here have learned there are times when they have to weigh 1) judgement 2) advantage/disadvantage 3) the rulebook 4) POE's 5) how the supervisor wants things done 6) the level of play. We have learned how to properly balance all 6 of those considerations.

You seem to be on a one man crusade. I'm still waiting to hear what your D1 colleagues tell you about following the rulebook to the letter of the law. What have you been told when you've attended camps and NBA/NBDL/NCAA D1 officials have been on the sideline observing you and giving you feedback?

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

Are you here speaking as an official or as a coach who is unhappy with his local officiating?

[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?

[Adam]

Here's the thing. At the CYO level, you're going to get refs who are learning how to apply advantage/disadvantage. Not all of them are going to have it figured out.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You are taking this to the extreme. Who in here has said they are going to chuck the rulebook and call the game anyway they please?

We learn as we gain experience. And 99% of the experienced officials here have learned there are times when they have to weigh 1) judgement 2) advantage/disadvantage 3) the rulebook 4) POE's 5) how the supervisor wants things done 6) the level of play. We have learned how to properly balance all 6 of those considerations.

You seem to be on a one man crusade. I'm still waiting to hear what your D1 colleagues tell you about following the rulebook to the letter of the law. What have you been told when you've attended camps and NBA/NBDL/NCAA D1 officials have been on the sideline observing you and giving you feedback?


Are you here speaking as an official or as a coach who is unhappy with his local officiating?

I am speaking as an official. I coach as well - i would expect that officials would be consistent. The best we can hope for is within a game. Shouldn't we be able to expect that they are within the entire scope of the sport? Isn't it reasonable to expect that referees should call the same game (Basketball) every time? The rules don't change from game to game - the officiting shouldn't either.

And I don't have any D1 colleagues - They're calling a college game anyway, not a HS game. They're more experienced, and watched more closely. But they shouldn't be interpreting the rules any different than me, or someone who has less experience.

And again - why does the assignor/supervisor have any impact on what is called and what isn't? (Don't give me "because that's the way it is") The rules say one thing, the supervisor says another - why would we take the word or interpretation of one person over the decision of the rules committee?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

But shouldn't they already be adjusted to playing by the rules (or outside the rules and getting called for it)? Why should they have to change game to game how they play based on which officials are there and which aren't, and what rules they choose to enforce that day?

It shouldn't be an adjustment - they should already be playing based on the rules of the game. By not calling them consistently (and adding in "judgements" which are personal, and not in the rules), we are forcing them to change how they play from game to game.

Does it make sense that my team, as stated above, should have such a wide variety of outcomes to a game based on how the officials are that day? Or should they expect if they come up against a team which does things outside the rules (read "fouls") a lot, that they'll get a lot of fouls called, and when they play against a team which stays within the rules most of the time, little will be called?

There is a reason why some guys get to the higher levels and there are other officials are working JH and middle school games their entire career. If you feel that there is no judgment, frankly that is a very elementary way of thinking. I know of know camp or assignor that hires officials that takes that position. If you feel I am wrong, I guess you will just have to feel that way. I am not trying to convince you personally, I just want to make clear to others that thinking like you are is going to keep them from other opportunities. I will also disagree with another poster, they is a lot of judgment in many violations. If is a carry or not takes some judgment on the part of the calling official. It is one thing to know what a rule is but you have to accurately notice it and call it appropriately.

Peace

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Here's the thing. At the CYO level, you're going to get refs who are learning how to apply advantage/disadvantage. Not all of them are going to have it figured out.

They shouldn't have to. The rules say this is legal, that isn't, and they should be calling by those standards.

I'm talking high school CYO, and many of those officials are varsity officials also in our area. They are much more lenient in CYO games with what they choose to call - the rules don't change, but the officials change what they choose to call. This is where I have a problem, both as an official and as a coach.

How do I teach my kids what to do, if every game, what they can and cannot do changes? If they're calling very little, should I tell them to foul the crap out of everyone, because they can get away with it? I'm sorry - I won't tell them to break the rules intentionally, just because the refs aren't calling it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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?

It’s only a foul, according to rule 4-27-3, if it hinders the player from making normal offensive or defensive movements. He made the pass as he intended, so tell me which offensive movements were hindered?