Advantage/Disadvantage
 

Here's a question I have always wondered about:

The rules do not specify advantage/disadvantage. It is a consideration added on at the end of the rules. (Unlike Soccer, where "Advantage" is an actual rule component)

Obviously, if a player is fouled, and there is a disadvantage caused by the foul (such as hitting a player's arm during a shot, bumping a player and they lose the ball, etc), it should be called.

But what about fouls which don't appear to create a disadvantage to that player at that particular moment. Here's what I mean: A player is fouled, but not specifically disadvantaged, but in the grand scheme of the game - a foul called would give a player one more foul in their count to 5, the team one more foul on the way to the bonus, and possibly have an effect on the game.

In a sense, it is always to the fouled team's "advantage" to call the fouls, because it gets them closer to the bonus, and gets the fouler closer to fouling out of the game (which, if it is a good player, will become a significant advantage to the fouled team).

Opinions?

A1 drives to the basket. B1, defending near the free throw line, sticks his leg out slightly, slowing A1 a little. A1 continues and clearly beats B1 and has an easy scoring opportunity. A1 scores a layup.

If you call a foul on B1, A does not get the basket and takes the ball oob. Yes, B1 will have a foul in the books. Most of the coaches I know would not gripe about the foul, but would have preferred the points.

If B1's action allows B1 to retain guarding position or allows B2 to get into position to defend A1, then that exact same action should be called a foul. I think these scenarios depict why we are asked to judge advantage/disadvantage.

I had an AAU game once where one team's point guard was obviously the best player on the floor. The other teams guards would always pick him up right after he brought the ball over half-court. Almost every time they would bump him or put a hand on him. But everytime they did that, after the initial contact, he would blow right by the defense with a clear path to the lane to either dish off or score himself.

I chose not to blow my whistle b/c the point guard was not being disadvantaged by the contact. In fact, he seemed like he was waiting for the defense tighten up on him b/c he knew they could not contain him once they got that close.

This is a good example of a no-call no one would argue. But I guess I'm thinking of situations where there may or may not be a disadvantage caused by the foul itself (which, in these cases, clearly it is to the fouled team's advantage to continue to play), but a foul was committed. Hand check near half court. Block when not shooting which didn't really affect the person's motion, etc.

Should read "But what about contact which doesn't appear to create a disadvantage to that player at that particular moment. Here's what I mean: A player is contacted by an opponent, but not specifically disadvantaged,"

These are then not fouls...you have already stated a foul occurred, when in fact there was contact with no advantage/disadvantage, so it's not a foul.

But the rules don't specify that - the "additional information" at the end talks about ad/disad.

And I am talking about a clear foul without ad/disad - a hand check at half court which definitely affects the motion, but the dribbler keeps going.

Actually, wiithout using the terms directly, these concepts ARE in the rules. Check Rule 4 Sect 27 which is the definition for Incidental Contact.

Your premise is incorrect, so your conclusions are suspect.

Well
 

You may be correct about the advantage/disadvantage not being specific in the rule or case book. But you are missing one of the most important books that it is mentioned in. That is the officials manual. Yes the rules and case books they are great and will tell you what to call but IMO the manual tells us how to officiate and should be the Bible to officials.

If the hand check affects the dribbler's motion, is that not a disadvantage? Judgement is involved in advantage/disadvantage....but you are saying the contact was enough for it to be a clear foul without disadvantage. You are contradicting yourself. :confused:

But the officials manual isn't the official source of rules - its how some people want the rules called or interpreted. The rules govern the game.

Better example of a clear foul - A1 has his legs taken out by B1, but manages to pass the ball to A2 in the process for an easy layup. Clearly this is to A's advantage to not call the foul, since they scored. In soccer, you would not call the foul, as by rule, that is an application of "advantage". Obviously A1 was fouled. Do we look at advantage (ball went to a teammate who scored) or call the foul, which appears to penalize team A?

What about a foul that doesn't put A1 on the floor, but with the same result?

What about a hand check at half court, same results?

That
 

That is exactly why there is a manual. It is like our guide for the rules. All 3 books must be used. They are all put out by NFHS and are to be used together. It isn't just how some person wants the game to be called it is law it is how it should be called.
I always advise people to read the rule and case book together a couple of times then read the manual. You have to use all 3 to be able to develop as a ref.

It is almost like you are saying that this doesn't make sense to me and even though it is written out for you you are not going to abide by it. If this is the case you are wrong and need to hang it up. Hopefully it is not the case and now you are enlightened and will read the manual.

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.

I disagree with you on part of what you are saying. The rules talk about incidental contact under Rule 4 and talk about how all contact is not a foul if that contact does not change the normal movement of players or actions, there should be no foul. Also the rules state that contact can be severe and not a foul. Anytime there is a POE about hand-checking, illegal screens and even rough play, the rules committee seems to reference the incidental contact rule.

I will refer to my previous statements as what I think about this issue.

Peace

I have read the manual - refer to the specific situations presented in my other recent post.

But besides - how many games have a rules set, and then a "how to enforce the rules" book? But this is another topic.