Poll on applying advantage/disadvantage to violations

[bgtg19]

In the "Little Travels" thread, one poster observed: "Avantage/disadvantage applies to contact, not violations, such as travel."

Without question, and to differing degrees (sometimes greatly differing degrees), we ALL consider advantage/disadvantage when looking at contact and determining whether to call a foul. And it seems to me that NONE of us consider advantage/disadvantage when, for example, a player dribbling the ball steps on the sideline. It is a violation every time we see it.

In my area, our assignor has told us not to call the illegal dribble/palming violations when the player who otherwise would have violated is by her/himself dribbling. Basically, call violation if, and only if, a player gains an advantage by using an illegal dribble to go past someone. So, clearly not all violations are treated with the same view as stepping OOB.

My question is this: what is the best way to think of advantage/disadvantage when it comes to violations? Let's not revisit the entire ad/disad issue dealing with fouls (that's for the other thread), but this is intended as a violations-only thread.

[bgtg19]

I suppose I should add that, for the purposes of this poll and this thread, let's treat this as high school varsity basketball. (Most would certainly recognize that 9-year olds require a different set of standards.)

[deecee]

actually a nice story i heard from a guy who did 2 maybe 3 D1 girls games -- he admintted why he never got called back

half court set -- PG was by midcourt in the FC with 0 pressure -- she was calling out a play and dribbling -- while she was calling the play she palmed/carried -- very obvious. He as the T made the call -- had to T the coach up after that because the coach was going on and on about "that's not a call made in this situation in this level."

turned out the assignor agreed with the coach and told him he also needs to officiate the level of ball that the game was.

dont know if someone put him up to this story but I have heard from NBA-D1-HS officials (good ones anyway) that the level of play comes into play for what you are going to call.

here it would seem like the palming/carrying violation was 100% correct and good for him -- but once again real world application doesnt always work with how the rules are written or enforced in theory.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bgtg19

In the "Little Travels" thread, one poster observed: "Avantage/disadvantage applies to contact, not violations, such as travel."

Without question, and to differing degrees (sometimes greatly differing degrees), we ALL consider advantage/disadvantage when looking at contact and determining whether to call a foul. And it seems to me that NONE of us consider advantage/disadvantage when, for example, a player dribbling the ball steps on the sideline. It is a violation every time we see it.

In my area, our assignor has told us not to call the illegal dribble/palming violations when the player who otherwise would have violated is by her/himself dribbling. Basically, call violation if, and only if, a player gains an advantage by using an illegal dribble to go past someone. So, clearly not all violations are treated with the same view as stepping OOB.

My question is this: what is the best way to think of advantage/disadvantage when it comes to violations? Let's not revisit the entire ad/disad issue dealing with fouls (that's for the other thread), but this is intended as a violations-only thread.

bgtg19:

I have some disappointing news for you. Advantage/disadvantage does NOT ever apply to violations. The NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules Committees are quite clear about this. The Oswal Tower Philosophy of Advantage/Disadvantage is only to be applied to contact. Therefore: 1) You failed to include a category the states that Ad/DisAd does NOT ever apply; and 2) The Tower Philosophy makes your poll invalid.

MTD, Sr.

[bgtg19]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

bgtg19:

I have some disappointing news for you. Advantage/disadvantage does NOT ever apply to violations. The NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules Committees are quite clear about this. The Oswal Tower Philosophy of Advantage/Disadvantage is only to be applied to contact. Therefore: 1) You failed to include a category the states that Ad/DisAd does NOT ever apply; and 2) The Tower Philosophy makes your poll invalid.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, I have two questions, both intended respectfully:

(1) Doesn't option #2 ("Advantage/disadvantage applies to no violations") say the same thing as "Ad/DisAd does NOT ever apply to violations"?

(2) If the NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules Committees are "quite clear" that Ad/DisAd does not ever apply to violations, why do you think it is that my HS assignor and the D1 assignor for the guy deecee spoke to seem to espouse a different view. (In other words: why do so many people get it wrong?)

Thanks for any insights you can give.

[Jurassic Referee]

WOBW

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

WOBW

[BillyMac]

From Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: "Advantage/disadvantage does NOT ever apply to violations".

Mr. DeNucci: I glad to see that you're once again frequently posting on this Forum. I see that you have decided to omit your outstanding credentials at the bottom of all your posts, but even without your credentials, most Forum members can tell from your posts and threads that you're an experienced official.

Please give a citation, hopefuly in writing, that supposts your quote above. From my viewpoint, the Spirit and Intent of the Rules and the Tower Philsophy do not differentiate fouls from violations. I do believe that Spirit and Intent of the Rules and the Tower Philsophy, in almost all cases, refer to contact situations, as in Rule 4-27, "Incidental Contact", however I find your choice of language "Not ever" to be too strongly worded. Your wording sounds a lot like the old saying "Never say never".

From the Spirit and Intent of the Rules, NFHS Rule Book, page 10: 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.

The Tower Philsophy (author unknown):The Tower Philosophy" is not a written document but a guiding principle used by editors of the Rules Committee. The Tower Philosophy came from Oswald Tower, a past Editor of the Rules Committee and was espoused by his predecessor, John Bunn.

Rules Philosophy and Principles:
"As a result of observing officiating in various parts of the U.S.A. and internationally and responding to the many inquiries that have come to the attention of the Editor for a response as to the official ruling of a certain situation that occurred, there are some principles that evidence themselves as being basic to the answer of the majority of inquiries. They reflect a need for thought towards a realistic approach to officiating rather than a literal approach. A well-officiated ball game is one in which the official has called the game in accordance with the spirit and intent of the basketball rules as established by the Rules Committee. In effect, it is a realistic approach rather than a literalistic approach.

The basic and fundamental responsibility of a basketball official, while officiating a contest, is to have the game proceed and played with as little interference as possible on the part of the official. This is not to say that he is not to blow the whistle when a rule has been violated; but it is one of not seeking ways to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rule.

Some thirty years ago, John Bunn phrased for the Basketball Rules Committee what was called the 'Oswald Tower Philosophy', and it best represents what the Rules Committee believes and supports regarding the officiating of a contest. The philosophy is expressed as followed:

'It is the purpose of the rules to penalize a player who by reason of an illegal act has placed his opponent at a disadvantage.' It represents a realistic approach to guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not a rule violation has occurred.

As an illustration, Rule 10 - Section 10 of the rules states, 'A player shall not contact an opponent with his hand unless such contact is only with the opponent's hand while it is on the ball and is incidental to an attempt to play the ball...' If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular rule and officiated the rule literally, the basketball game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A good official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited previously, but also in other aspects of the game must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent then, realistically speaking, no rule violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

The "Tower Philosophy" stated in another manner is as follows: 'It is not the intent that the rules shall be interpreted literally, rather they should be applied in relation to the effect which the action of the players has upon their opponents. If they are unfairly affected as a result of a violation of rules, then the transgressor shall be penalized. If there has been no appreciable effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be interrupted. The act should be ignored. It is incidental and not vital. Realistically and practically, no violation has occurred.'

The Rules Committee has, over the years, operated under this fundamental philosophy in establishing its interpretations so far as officiating is concerned. Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are hired to officiate basketball games because the employer believes that he has basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevails during a basketball game. The excellent official exercises mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. Inquiries indicate that some coaches and officials are too concerned over trivial or unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted in digging up hyper-technicalities, which are of little or no significance. In the Editor's travels, he finds that, unfortunately in some Rules Clinics and officials' meetings and interpretation sessions there are those who would sidetrack the 'bread and butter' discussions too often and get involved with emotional discussions over situations that might happen once in a lifetime. In many instances, these very same officials are looking for a mechanical device and many times it is these very officials who are the ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists who have no faith in their own evaluation or judgment. This minority is those who are categorized as the excessive whistle blowers who are not enhancing our game: in fact, they hurt the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny detail to replace judgment. The Basketball Rules Committee is looking for the official with a realistic and humanistic approach in officiating the game of basketball. Did he violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule?"

Please see next thread, Part II.

[BillyMac]

Continued from previous thread, Part I

From TOWER PHILOSOPHY:ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Paul “Jacky” Loube, Executive Director, The International Association of Approved Basketball Officials

I remember the very first time I was asked to make a presentation at an IAABO Interpreters Seminar. My topic that morning was the “Tower Philosophy” and its impact on different levels of basketball. I really didn’t know where to begin so I attempted to research the impact that the “Tower Philosophy” had on the game by interviewing coaches and officials. I was amazed by the many different interpretations of the philosophy and the cavalier approach veterans had when explaining the philosophy to me. I found that officials working youth basketball while exercising the Tower Philosophy gave a great deal of latitude to players at that level, while those at progressively higher levels gave less leeway. My concern was that this implementation should have been reversed. Should not younger players first have an understanding of what actions are within the limits of the rules? Is not a travel a travel? In today’s basketball, however, young officials begin early to make their own determination as to what is within the “spirit and intent” of the rules.

SOUND RULES FOUNDATION
The more I observe the training of applicants who want to become officials, the more convinced I become that the concept of advantage-disadvantage should remain a “foreign language” until a sound rules foundation has been realized and processed by the official. Officials should be absolutely certain and well versed on the description and explanation of each foul and violation. A strictly literal approach should be taken. Only then, armed with an initial literal knowledge of all the elements of the rules, will they be able to make rulings on the realistic philosophy of advantage disadvantage. It is true that all the great officials have put the Tower Philosophy into practice but that skill doesn’t develop overnight.

A well-officiated game is one wherein the official has adhered to the spirit and intent of the rules as established,in FIBA competition, by the World Technical Commission. The basic and fundamental responsibility of each official is to ensure the game proceeds with as little interference as possible by the officiating team. This is not to say that an official should not blow the whistle when a rule has been breached. The intention should rather be to avoid calling infractions that do not contravene the spirit and intent of the rules.

DR. JOHN BUNN
Over 50 years ago, Dr. John Bunn, IAABO Interpreter and editor of the NCAA Rules, introduced what was called the “Oswald Tower Philosophy,” named for his friend and fellow IAABO Interpreter, Oswald Tower. The philosophy best represented what the Basketball Rules Committee believed and supported regarding the officiating of a contest. The same philosophy is embraced by FIBA through its World Technical Commission.

This philosophy represents a realistic approach that would guide the judgment of officials in making decisions on all situations where the effect upon the play is the key factor in determining whether or not an infraction has
occurred. As an illustration, if A1 sets a legal screen on B1 and B1 generates notable contact with A1, should play stop and a foul be called on B1? What about A2, who executed the play just as the coach designed it, used the legal screen and has broken free for an easy lay-up? If an official did not take a realistic approach to this particular situation and officiated literally, team A would be penalized and the game would be one of continual fouls and whistle blowing. A veteran official realizes that contact, not only in the instance cited but in other aspects of the game as well, must be looked at in terms of the effect it creates on the opponent. If there is no apparent disadvantage to an opponent, then realistically speaking, no rules violation has occurred. The official must use discretion in applying this rule and all rules.

TOWER PHILOSOPHY STATED ANOTHER WAY
The “Tower Philosophy” stated in another manner is as follows: if players are unfairly affected as a result of an infraction of the rules, then the player not in compliance must be penalized, but if there has been no appreciable
effect upon the progress of the game, then the game shall not be stopped. The action should be ignored. The official must determine immediately if the contact is incidental. For example, the crowd is screaming for an “over the back foul” on B1 when the ball is hit out of bounds but realistically and practically, no infraction has occurred.

PLAY SITUATIONS
Obviously, this philosophy assumes that the official has a thorough understanding of the game. Officials are chosen to officiate basketball games because game organizers believe those officials have basketball intelligence and an understanding of the mood and climate that prevail in the game today. Better officials exercise mature judgment in each play situation in light of the basic philosophy stated. The FIBA office is consistently bombarded with issues concerning trivial and unimportant details about play situations during the game. Much time and thought is wasted on minor technicalities that are of little or no significance. At countless rules clinics around the world, there are those who sidetrack the “fundamental” discussions far too often and get involved with emotional debates over situations that might occur once in a lifetime.

In many instances, these very same officials have no faith in the value of judgment, and more times than not, lack basic game management skills. Some would call them “excessive whistle blowers” or “interferers”, an affront to the game. They are the very ones who want a spelled-out and detailed rule for every tiny point, rather than rely on judgment and common sense. At the higher levels of competition, educators and commissioners are looking for the official with an advantage-disadvantage and humanistic approach to officiating. Did the player violate the spirit and intended purpose of the rule? Below are some guidelines that must be adhered to by officials, coaches, and players for the game to be well officiated.

A veteran official must possess a knowledge of the rules and mechanics when officiating each and every game. Expressions such as, “We’ll only switch on fouls resulting in free throws,” creates hesitancy and indecisiveness and is never an ingredient of a competent officiating package. Competent and dedicated officials exude a floor presence and physical condition that is commensurate with the demands of a basketball game. They have sound judgment and cooperate with fellow officials, exercise an air of calmness and confidence and are consistent with their calls. When an official has these qualifications and uses them within the framework
of advantage-disadvantage, the game will be well officiated and well served.

LEVEL OF OFFICIATING
Finally, the quality of the game of basketball will never be any better than its level of officiating. The well-officiated contest will have had the play situations judged on the doctrine and principles of advantage-disadvantage. Sadly, those who lack the basic understanding of these principles often rely on the Tower Philosophy as an excuse for not making a call. They miss the reality that the spirit and intent of the Tower Philosophy is the basis for making a sound and consistent judgment, one that is used in deciding to blow the whistle or not to blow the whistle, but never to ignore an obvious infraction.

Was the game played and consistently officiated under the basic philosophy that a ruling should be made if one team gained an advantage (or was placed at a disadvantage) that was not intended within the spirit and intent of the rule? If so, it was a well officiated game.

Mr. DeNucci: Where, in all these sources, or in sources that you can come up with, do you find, in writing, a differentiation between fouls and violations, enough to give strong evidence to your quote that "Advantage/disadvantage does NOT ever apply to violations"? I believe that you and I probably agree on 99% of this issue. I believe that Spirit and Intent of the Rules and the Tower Philsophy, in almost all cases, refer to contact situations, as in Rule 4-27, "Incidental Contact", but your words are a "blanket statement" that don't seem to be supported by anything in writing that I've ever seen in my 26 years of NFHS officiating. Maybe it's a local or state philosophy in your area, supported by your state or local interpreter, but, in my humble opinion, not supported by the NFHS.

Finally, From Jurassic Referee: "There are certain violations that I think that even the FED rulesmakers would probably agree, if you twisted their arms, that some discretion (read: advantage/disadvantage) is needed to make an appropriate call. Examples might be 3-seconds and the 10-second count on a free-throw shooter. My point all along was that you just couldn't try to apply advantage/disadvantage indiscriminately to violations. Most violations must be called."

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

WOBW

World of Bike Wheels?

[deecee]

billy mac you put me to sleep like half of my econ professors did -- good job -- now WTF

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

World of Bike Wheels?

No.

WOBW = Waste of Band Width

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I found that officials working youth basketball while exercising the Tower Philosophy gave a great deal of latitude to players at that level, while those at progressively higher levels gave less leeway. My concern was that this implementation should have been reversed. Should not younger players first have an understanding of what actions are within the limits of the rules? Is not a travel a travel? In today’s basketball, however, young officials begin early to make their own determination as to what is within the “spirit and intent” of the rules.

SOUND RULES FOUNDATION
The more I observe the training of applicants who want to become officials, the more convinced I become that the concept of advantage-disadvantage should remain a “foreign language” until a sound rules foundation has been realized and processed by the official. Officials should be absolutely certain and well versed on the description and explanation of each foul and violation. A strictly literal approach should be taken.

Had this discussion with an official yesterday. Towards the end of this year my son and I [both completing our 3rd year] have made a point of working games we are assigned together with a more literal application of the rules at the lower levels. As new officials we are assured during training that if lower level games are called too strictly "you will be there all night long" - however, we have found that the key to calling those games more strictly and still finishing on time is the level of hustle of the officials and, consequently, the level of hustle we can instill in the players. The more we run, the more they run and calling the fouls/violations does not prolong the game!

I believe that through working these lower level games with a stricter interpretation of the rules, it will only help the players compete at a higher level in their high school years. When I see the JV and Varsity games in which the footwork is poor, but not called consistently, it leaves room for an argument that says the result of loosely calling the lower level games (so we can "get out on time") is a set of players experienced in lax application of the rules and a set of officials with poorly defined "rules reflex" - i.e. too used to not calling poor footwork, for instance. Calling the lower level games more strictly also helps us, as inexperienced officials, develop our own convictions and style... one point in all this verbage being that if you are an experienced official - don't dissuade a less experienced official from calling a "cleaner" game because you feel it slows things down, just hustle a bit more!

[Terrapins Fan]

Billy Mac and Mark, You guys always give such good advice and such a good perspective. Keep up the good work and Thanks.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Holy Shnikes!!! OK, first of all, reading all those choices made my head hurt, and so I voted accordingly. But I have to say that what Billy Mac put together in his two posts should be required reading for all new officials. Good stuff!!