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.

So basically you're saying, regardless of how much of an advantage/disadvantage a foul (or incidental contact) creates to a team, you are only looking at it in terms of was that specific player advantaged or disadvantaged by that foul/contact/whatever?

And on that issue, the rules state very clearly what a hand check is, and near the end of the rulebook, it talks about how it is always a foul to have hands on the dribbler - even "touching" (sizing up, i believe it is called) is illegal. Why have something that the rules say is illegal, but you are told not to call? There is quite a contradiction there.

Well good
 

It doesn't matter how many have a rules set then a how to enforce it. The bottom line is basketball does so do it. End of story.

So if you have a rule that says "You can't do this", and a official manual that says "Don't do anything about it", you let it go? Why have the rule in the first place? Just get rid of it.

Besides - No one has addressed the situation I posted near the bottom of page 1 - the one where the kids legs were taken out, but the pass went to a teammate who scored. Advantage or foul?

I'd have to be there. If it were a rough game where players were being overly physical I'd probably be quick on my whistle. If the game is flowing pretty well and this was just a one-time occurrence then I might let it go if I can see that the ball is going to a wide open teammate for a lay-up.

It's not black-and-white.

I did not use the word "only." I said that the rules support a usage of "advantage/disadvantage" in the language. Now the exact words may not be used, but the rules say if normal movements are not hindered, then it cannot be a foul. Of course I might consider other factors when making foul calls, but I do not like to make a habit of calling fouls that have no advantage/disadvantage involved.

Also I cannot speak for what soccer does and how the rules are written. It might be that soccer has an entire section on this issue. I agree basketball does not, have a lot written about this, but it is covered.

Peace

Wrong, the rules do address, specifically, advantage/disadvantage. Look up the definition of "incidental contact." Contact which does not create an advantage should be ruled incidental.

Editing to add: I don't have the rule book here, but after reading more posts, I remember the phrasing may not be exact. However, rather than stating "advantage," it actually defines it as the hinderance of normal offensive or defensive movement.

Freshman boys game this year, A1 coming up the table-side sideline throws a pass across court to a wide open A2. Immediately after releasing the pass, B1 is closing in and shoves A1. I call the foul, and A's coach is asking for an intentional. When I decline, he tells me I should have let it go because I just cost his team a layup; and therefore rewarded B1 for poor defense. I let him vent, because he was right. One of the calls this year I'd like to have back.

How can it not be?

How can you have a rule that says "sometimes call it, sometimes don't"? This is more a case of you deciding whether to apply the rule, or whether to just ignore it. The rules are relatively black and white. The interpretations add some grey space, and the refs themselves muddy the waters even more with personal feelings, what kind of a game they're willing to call, the level of the players (um - don't remember there being anything in the rules changing them based on the level of play, by age or by skill), etc.

I guess I see it more like a card game. I don't think anyone would agree that just because I feel like it today, I'm going to allow people in blackjack to count a 2 as 5, or go over 21 without busting. The rules define what you can and cannot do. As officials, we are there to keep the players safe and administer the rules. To pick and choose which rules we want to enforce on a particular day, or how we want to enforce them, makes it less of basketball and more "me-sketball". I don't remember seeing anything in the rules allowing officials to just decide what to call and what not to. There are some areas where we are asked to judge. We're not asked to judge things like 3 seconds - we're asked to call them. We're not asked to judge whether a bear hug from behind is intentional - we're asked to call it intentional. We are asked to judge some things - but some things we're not, and people just do.

I guess it comes down to - if we have rules, why don't we just follow them and be done with it?

Your situation is very vague. How were A1's legs taken out? Was it a diliberate trip? was he tackeled? Did A1 and B1 just get tangled up as they were moving up court? Snaqwell hits the mark with 4-27. If it was a foul on B1 per rules and not just incidental, Whistle, only dead ball issues remain......

Not incidental. I guess I should have put that in as a more specific detail. I'm thinking soccer again - there was a clear "foul", but the fouled team maintained possession of the ball. But in soccer, you acknolwedge the foul, but don't call it.

So in this case, you'd call it every time, even if there was no bonus, and the team that was just fouled (and made the basket) would have been up one with the basket with no time left on the clock? (but now they lose?)

What about with lots of time and a big score differential?

Comes back to "How can you call it different at different points in the game?" - the rules either say to call it ot not to. That's what I'm asking. Do the rules support a call which is advantageous to the team, but not to the player? (Obviously, the player was fouled, but it was to the team's advantage to keep playing - this is the situation).

Some people call this game management - i feel it is an excuse not to call things because you don't want to call them, for whatever reason.

Perhaps this is where I fall short. If I see a foul, I call it. I am not concerned with what might be if I dont. In your previous case, if the foul is not called perhaps A2 misses the layup or is fouled in the process of the layup. There are alot of what ifs.... If it is a foul, call it. If this is your point, good. But there are judgement calls that must be made by the official at that split second in an attempt to uphold the "intent" of the rules and the rules themselves. I believe most will do their best to be "consistent" throughout the game and not be concerned with score, etc. Officials are the only impartial people at the game.

Well David, you continue to do it your way. You asked a question and several folks have said why they do things the way they do. You are not going to change anyone's philosophy. Have you had this conversation with any of your D1 colleagues and/or mentors? I have. And what they tell me are not the same things that you are saying here.

So what exactly are you hoping to gain from this conversation? Are you interested in other people's philosophies or do you just want to argue?

Here's the thing. If A1 makes the pass before getting tripped and it gets to A2 who is wide open, then which normal offensive movements were hindered? If none, then it's not a foul. It's a judgment call, that's what allows us to call it if the game is getting a bit rough. Sometimes, "game management" concerns would lead you to call a foul for contact in which the advantage gained is minimal.
Yup, they are. If there's no hinderance of offensive movement, there's no foul. It's the same concept for when a 90 lb point guard drives into the paint and runs into a 200 lb center and falls to the floor. There's not really an offensive foul here. Okay, you go ref a 5th grade boys game and call every travel and double dribble you see. Work on picking up the pivot foot.

And fouls are the things we are supposed to judge; every time. Yes, even the bear hug. If he's reaching for the ball, you going to call that an intentional just because it looks like a bear hug?

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.


The key word is hinder...if A1 can make the pass for the lay up, then the contact didn't hinder A1, so it isn't a foul, it is incidental contact.

There is your advantage/disadvantage in the rule book.

We do the same thing in basketball; we just don't have a "play on" signal.

[QUOTE=Snaqwells]
Okay, you go ref a 5th grade boys game and call every travel and double dribble you see. Work on picking up the pivot foot.
QUOTE]

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"

I don't think you are really asking anything. You are getting some really solid answers and keep disagreeing. I think you are trying to make a point and are posing it as a question. You want every foul called by the book. Go ahead and ref that way if you really feel that is the way it should be done. I wouldn't do it that way.

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?)

So you're just going to call what you want to call, regardless of the rules? Isn't this kind of against the point of having rules?

Two things, and they may seem contradictory.
1. At certain lower levels, if you call them for every violation you see, they won't learn anything. You call 40 travels in a running clock game, all they're going to learn is how to run their in bounds play. I'll tell you flat out, when I'm doing a game like this, I'm looking for advantage on a travel before I call it; same thing with double dribbles.
2. It's not our job to teach these kids to play basketball. In a way, it's to allow the coaches to teach them. By blowing your whistle every 20 seconds, we remove that opportunity from the coaches.
3. I don't care about how many coaches compliment or complain. (I know I said two, but consider 3 a bonus.) :)

You're ignoring 4-27-3 in spite of its clarity on this exact point.

And coaches have complimented me. I don't teach the kids anything. The coaches do. It's the coach's job to teach the kids not to travel.

If I'm doing a 10U game I'm not calling every single travel. If a player is all by his/herself near halfcourt and lifts the pivot foot before dribbling I'm not calling it. And I'll continue to get games.

Apparent
 

I feel that drinkeii just wants to start an argument. He doesn't want to listen to our answers. I say just give him more rope.... you guys know what will happen.

Good point on #3 - i'm simply saying I have some coaches that agree with my philosophy.

As for 1 and 2 - they're not going to learn the rules (which is bad enough as it is - no one seems to know the real rules except for the refs, which is a major part of problems with basketball and rule enforcement - players would play better if they knew what was really legal and not, rather than wanting reaching and over the back fouls), if they're just allowed to do whatever they want to. I've seen 5th grade games which every kid travels every time he moves, and I've seen 5th grade games where every kid is able to recognise his pivot, set it, and move legally. Most are somewhere in between. If our job isn't to teach, then we should be calling it every time, and every coach should be explaining to their kids what they're doing wrong. In a perfect world...

And now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not going to become overly officious. There is no point to be a legalist. Every judicial system has a place for grace, mercy, and common sense. If a guy is coming up in the backcourt all by himself and palms the ball...I am not going to call it. If the same guy then fakes to the right on his defender and then palms the ball to bring it back across his defender to gain an advantage, then I will call it.

However, if you want every law enforced just as it is written, that is your right. Just don't complain if you ever get a ticket for going 31 in a 30 mph zone.

Not "Apparent"
 

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?

You picked the wrong person for that - I would not complain. I broke the law, and have no problem with accepting the consequences of that choice. But what about a sports example - they only stepped a little on the out of bounds line, not a lot. Millimeter? Half inch? Where do we draw the line? If they step on the line, they're out of bounds. If they break the rules, they broke the rules. I don't remember grace, mercy, or common sense being referred to in the rules. Otherwise - well, it was a beautiful play, but you traveled - guess I'll ignore the travel in favor of the beautiful play. Find support for that in the rules...

The biggest problem with kids (in or out of sports) - they're unwilling to accept consequences for their actions. Correction - they're willing to accept positive consequences for their choices which generate them - but not negative ones. It's always someone else's fault. But again, another topic.

If you're talking about the topic of this thread, then this is wrong. Again, see rule 4-27-3.
If you're talking about traveling in a 5th grade girls game.... good grief.

David, you're on another one of these crusades that you started back in November. ( http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=29320 ) 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.

You're half right. Our job is to administer the rules. Keeping them safe is a product of that, but it is not an actual consideration.

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.

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.:rolleyes:

One word justifies it - Judgement. That's a major portion of what we get paid the big bucks for.

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

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?

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.

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?

See page 10 of the rulebook under <b>The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules</b>---<i>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."</i>

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.

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.:D

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Your basic premise is completely wrong from the git-go. The rules do <b>NOT</b> say that you should call a foul just because there is contact. A foul, by rules definition, is <b>illegal</b> contact with an opponent. It is <b>always</b> up to the calling official on each and every play to <b>judge</b> 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 <b>your</b> judgment. Other officials obviously may judge differently, using <b>their</b> judgment.

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 :eek: to find that laws (otherwise known as rules) are interpreted differently than lawyer to lawyer, judge to judge, and jury to jury...

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?

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.

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 <b>legal</b> contact, then <b>NO</b> rule has been broken.

Again, you're completely misunderstanding some very basic officiating tenets.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

And I'm saying that your statement above is complete and utter nonsense. You're trying to force <b>your</b> own <b>personal</b> opinion on what constitutes a foul on <b>all</b> 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 <b>BE</b> a foul. Iow, there was NO <b>illegal</b> 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.

Sigh...

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

Simple concept, David.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

1) There's the whole problem right there, but you just can't see it. It is your <b>opinion</b> that the rules aren't being enforced consistently. It is also probably the <b>opinion</b> of the officials that you are having such a great time second-guessing that they <b>are</b> 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 <b>understand</b> 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 <b>all</b> get one wrong. We're imperfect people trying to do a perfect job.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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."

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. http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/banghead.gif

Peace

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.

Advantage/Disadvantage "Rule"
 

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".

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.