Advantage/Disadvantage

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

So you would not call this as a foul, even though the player ended up on the floor, maybe bleeding? You would say this is incidental, by the rules? Just a simple yes or no.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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 about contact, in which the rules do say some is legal and some isn't; it's up to the judgment of the official.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm talking about contact, in which the rules do say some is legal and some isn't; it's up to the judgment of the official.

But if the rules say some is and some isn't... the rules say what is and what isn't, and there is no judgement involved. What you wrote before the semicolon contradicts what follows it. Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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.

And I'm saying that your statement above is complete and utter nonsense. You're trying to force your own personal opinion on what constitutes a foul on all other officials. Saying that a foul didn't get called because a official didn't want to call it just might tie for the stoopidest post ever made on this forum. All you're doing now is dumping on an official who simply judged a play differently than you. The ref didn't call a foul because he didn't the judge the play to BE a foul. Iow, there was NO illegal contact according to that official's judgment. That's how the game is officiated. Just because David Rinkeii disagrees with a judgment call made by an official sureashell doesn't automatically make that official wrong.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

Sigh...

The rules say that contact may or may not be illegal. It is up to the official to make that determination.

Simple concept, David.

[Big2Cat]

Time to close this thread. It is pointless. He didn't come to ask any questions...just to make a point. We all disagree. If he can't take that, then we need to move on.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

David doesn't have any D1 colleagues, News. He may have some D1 acquaintances. That's completely different. The last info I had was that David had run some intramural program somewhere.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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?

Well I do have D1 colleagues. What you are saying is not what they are saying or doing. And you still haven't answered my questions about camps. What have you been told there?

What does a police chief or commissioner or sheriff have to do with how police officers enforce the law in certain precincts, cities, or counties? Is law enforcement done exactly the same everywhere you go? Is speeding enforced on Nevada interstates just as it is in Maryland. Are marijuana laws as strigently enforced in South Central LA as they are in Salt Lake City?

Whether you like it or not, your officiating philosophy is not what is accepted by the overwhelming majority of officials and supervisors. Assignors and supervisors trust the judgement of their officials, especially their top level officials. If an official feels contact should be passed on, then it should be passed on.

Why don't you tell us the real reason you started this thread? Give us the exact play you encountered (i'm thinking it occurred in a game you coached). You know what, maybe the official just blew that particular call. Maybe you just had a inexperienced official. Or maybe you just had a bad official. No matter what the case, the play is over and done with. We weren't there. We can't change the call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

So you would not call this as a foul, even though the player ended up on the floor, maybe bleeding? You would say this is incidental, by the rules? Just a simple yes or no.

Your question has a maybe, so does my answer. If it’s a train wreck, I’ll call the foul. If it’s a bump that knocks the passer in a new direction, I’m likely to pass. My point is that there has to be some hindrance from normal offensive or defensive movements to constitute a foul. It takes judgment to decide this, as it’s not always black and white. If a player is on the floor, then I think he’s probably been hindered. I say probably, because if the time on the clock is so low that the passer is done for the game after making this pass, I might pass on the contact to let the shooter get his shot; unless it’s an intentional foul.
I don’t want the defense to be advantaged by this

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You know what, maybe the official just blew that particular call. Maybe you just had a inexperienced official. Or maybe you just had a bad official. No matter what the case, the play is over and done with. We weren't there. We can't change the call.

Or maybe the official passed correctly and the OP was wrong and it is a good thing we can't change it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

But if the rules say some is and some isn't... the rules say what is and what isn't, and there is no judgement involved. What you wrote before the semicolon contradicts what follows it. Either the rules say what is and isn't, or the official gets to decide what is and what isn't. You can't have both.

The problem is that the deciding factor is often whether there's an advantage created by the contact. That is up to the judgment of the official. You don't have to like it, but it's the way the rules are written.

[drinkeii]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Well I do have D1 colleagues. What you are saying is not what they are saying or doing. And you still haven't answered my questions about camps. What have you been told there?

What does a police chief or commissioner or sheriff have to do with how police officers enforce the law in certain precincts, cities, or counties? Is law enforcement done exactly the same everywhere you go? Is speeding enforced on Nevada interstates just as it is in Maryland. Are marijuana laws as strigently enforced in South Central LA as they are in Salt Lake City?

Whether you like it or not, your officiating philosophy is not what is accepted by the overwhelming majority of officials and supervisors. Assignors and supervisors trust the judgement of their officials, especially their top level officials. If an official feels contact should be passed on, the it should be passed on.

Why don't you tell us the real reason you started this thread? Give us the exact play you encountered (i'm thinking it occurred in a game you coached). You know what, maybe the official just blew that particular call. Maybe you just had a inexperienced official. Or maybe you just had a bad official. No matter what the case, the play is over and done with. We weren't there. We can't change the call.

Awful lot of assumptions in these last posts.

I have been a high school official for 6 years. I ran an IM sports program for 6 years as well, but have officiated hundreds of games outside this.

I started this thread because of a question I thought of related to how advantage appears to be called by basketball officials, vs how it is called in soccer, and the fact that many official say we have to apply it, even though the rules aren't nearly as clear on that point (mainly by not using the term "advantage") in basketball. It had nothing to do with a specific play or any game I've coached in or reffed, although elements were drawn from both experiences.

I don't expect to change anyones opinion. I simply do not understand how we can have a game with well-defined rules, and people choose not to enforce them consistently. That's all. I expect my partner to follow the rules, and am rather upset when he/she makes judgement calls which either are, or appear to be, in direct contraction to the rules. I get upset when my partner ignores an obvious hard foul, which I would get chewed out for calling because it is in their primary, and they said they passed on it because of... whatever.

If the advantage/disadvantage was as clear as you guys say, we would never have any kind of "and-1" play - if they score, why call the foul? You never would. Only if they missed.

I'm done - you guys do what you want - you will anyway, as you have stated. Maybe I'm in the minority. Might does not make right, nor is the majority always right. And the little backstabs ("I think this is what this is from..." or "He just does intramural stuff...") are neither appreciated nor appropriate. I am honestly trying to understand how otehr officials can justify ignoring what I (and other officials watching) feel are fouls, or just are obvious fouls or violations.

Guess I have different judgements than some of you. I am a rules person - that's the way I am - you can't play a game without rules. No one can debate this. You can't change the rules every time you play - or rather, shouldn't. This is debatable - the need for rules isn't.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

I don't expect to change anyones opinion. I simply do not understand how we can have a game with well-defined rules, and people choose not to enforce them consistently. That's all. I expect my partner to follow the rules, and am rather upset when he/she makes judgement calls which either are, or appear to be, in direct contraction to the rules. I get upset when my partner ignores an obvious hard foul, which I would get chewed out for calling because it is in their primary, and they said they passed on it because of... whatever.

That's under the assumption that your judgement is correct and your partner's wasn't. What makes you right and them wrong?

And you still haven't answered my question about the feedback you have gotten in camps. I made no comments about the level of ball you may or may not call. I want to know what feedback you get from successful officials.

[Big2Cat]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

Maybe I'm in the minority. Might does not make right, nor is the majority always right. And the little backstabs ("I think this is what this is from..." or "He just does intramural stuff...") are neither appreciated nor appropriate. I am honestly trying to understand how otehr officials can justify ignoring what I (and other officials watching) feel are fouls, or just are obvious fouls or violations.

Yes, you are in the minority in this topic.

The majority isn't always wrong, either.


A little more academic honesty on your part would be more appreciated as well. Instead of pretending to pose an a question seeking an answer, next time just state what you want. It took six pages until you finally posted what was really bugging you. Simple answer--life.

I work with a few guys who I truly feel don't call enough fouls and let kids play too often--and I tell them so. However, their judgment is different than mine. They also take a lot of heat from coaches because they come across as very inconsistent, or worse, just there for a paycheck. That's life. Instead of trying to change everyone else, stick to your convictions and do things the way you want to. If you are consistent with what you do on the court and know the rules, and work hard, I would work with you any day of the week.

[Back In The Saddle]

First of all, you keep saying you started this because you had a question. I'd like to know what your actual question is. From all you've said it seems to be "why doesn't everybody else see things the way I do?"

Basketball, maybe more than any other sport, is a huge gray area. There is so much contact that must be judged so frequently. And the criteria for judging are more nebulous than in any other sport I have ever officiated or played. Bottom line, the only thing truly black and white about the rules of basketball are the colors of the ink and page in the rules book.

But even having said that, you refuse to acknowledge the truth of what is printed in the rule book. First of all: "A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized." See that part "charged and penalized"? That means, literally and plainly, that it isn't a foul unless we call it. Period.

Then there's this little gem: "A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements..." Not only must there be illegal contact (as opposed to incidental contact), but there is a required judgment by the official as to whether the illegal contact actually hindered the opponent. Then there's "normal defensive and offensive movements." What does that mean? Well, we all think we know what it means, but it's never defined anywhere. Hmmm, so we're also left to judge what that means at the moment of contact.

Let's look at contact: "A player shall not: hold, push, charge, trip; nor impede the progress of an opponent by extending an arm, shoulder, hip or knee, or by bending the body into other than a normal position; nor use any rough tactics...." Please define, exactly, for me:

• hold
• push
• charge
• trip
• impede progress
• normal position
• rough tactics

Is it necessary to use the hands to hold? How about to push? Is it necessary for the opponent to be displaced on a "push" or is the mere act of pressing against the opponent a push?

And what are rough tactics? It's not defined. Surely you would agree that what's rough in a 5th grade game may be small beer in a men's rec. game.

And what about impeding progress? The same contact that will stop a 5th grader in his tracks might not slow down a HS varsity player. Even on the same team, what impedes a smaller player may not impede a larger player a bit.

When you get into the real language of the rules, there is very little that's black and white. Your assertion that it is black and white is misguided and apparently uninformed by actual, critical study of the rules.

But hey, you've got a great pissing match going here. Have at it.