Advantage/Disadvantage

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

1) I simply do not understand how we can have a game with well-defined rules, and people choose not to enforce them consistently.

2) 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.

1) There's the whole problem right there, but you just can't see it. It is your opinion that the rules aren't being enforced consistently. It is also probably the opinion of the officials that you are having such a great time second-guessing that they are enforcing the rules consistently. I simply can't believe that all of the other officials that you run into are that bad, and that wrong, at calling fouls.

2) I'm supposedly a rules person too. The problem is that you have to understand the rules in order to apply them properly. Unfortunately, I've seen nothing to date in this thread that might show that you really understand the rules as written when it comes to calling fouls. Officials simply judge whether contact is legal or illegal. Some officials are better at doing that than other officials. Now and then, we'll all get one wrong. We're imperfect people trying to do a perfect job.

[Camron Rust]

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.

David, I'm late to this thread but it is quite apparent that you may have a grasp of each rule as if it stood alone. What you're missing is the ablility to put ALL the rules together into a complete understanding of the game.

Each and EVERY contact situation is to be judged not only by the actual contact but by the effect of the contact. The definitions of fouls are what can be considered a foul IF the other aspects of a foul are also satisified: advantage (for one).

[Camron Rust]

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.

In a game will skilled players, where A1 passes to a wide open and undefended A2 heading to the basket for a sure 2 points, I have NO foul unless it is intentional or flagrant....even if the player ended up on the floor...or even bleeding.

Two points on the board is ALWAYS worth more than a foul.

At lower levels or with less skilled players, I'd call the foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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?

Just because the hand is there and they're attempting to direct the player doesn't mean they're successful at it.

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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.

There are some people that need every permutation and combination of possible event put down on paper. Unfortuately, the rulebook is writtent to be a small and compact as possible because it leads to a better understanding by MOST people. Every authority on the matter is fully consistent on the intent and purpose of the 3 seconds rule and how it is expected to be called. Not everything about officiating a game is written in the rulebook.

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.

Just because the contact is obvious and/or substantial doesn't mean that it is a foul. It is, by definition, incidental if the official judges that team A was not disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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 is fundamentally different than soccer...where contact is clearly defined as always a foul but is only called and penalized based on advantage.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by drinkeii

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.

It is called INTENT AND PURPOSE.

Even the legal system is not as you suggest. Time and time again, it has been reinforced that the laws of the land are merely guides that a jury can set aside if they feel it is unjust or inappropriate.

Life (and basketball) is simply too complicated to legislate all the possibilities with all the nuances and subtleties necessary to maintain a viable society (game).

As a parallel to the legal system, we are both the police, judge, and jury where the rules makers are the parallel of the legislatures.

Statements by Supreme Court Justices and Founding Fathers on the matter:
JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.

BYRON WHITE (1975): The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power--to make available the common sense judgement of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over
conditioned or biased response of a judge.

4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (United States v. Moylan, 417F.2d1006, 1969): "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

[deecee]

this is an argument that has run in circles and has not moved an inch -- why do we keep humoring him?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

this is an argument that has run in circles and has not moved an inch -- why do we keep humoring him?

If you noticed some of us have stopped.

Peace

[Karin]

interesting to read all this from a FIBA perspective-?We use art.47 in our rulebook and if anyone is interested http://www.vbra.basketball.net.au/fs....asp?OrgID=314 news items 6,7 and 8 show a good overview of our style.

[BillyMac]

The "Rule" about Advantage/Disadvantage is on page 10 of the 2006-07 NFHS Rule Book under The Intent And Purpose Of the Rules:

"It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player of 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".

[MJT]

drinkeii, call everything that you seem to think is a foul and there will be about 60 fouls and no flow to the game at all. I don't think anyone but you will enjoy that game.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by 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.

My vote for best post.
I have found this to be useful - amazing that this was all generated today!

[Larks]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you noticed some of us have stopped.

Peace

Exactly!! As the great C & C Music Factory would say....."Things that make you go....hmmmm"

[Ignats75]

Originally Posted by 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.

Without a doubt, post of the season!!!!!!!!!