Ref Explains Advantage/Disadvantage

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

LIB.com - So, it's more than just "rules"......there's actually a philosophy involved.

REF - Exactly. There's plenty to keep an eye on, to be sure, but you really want to conduct a game within the context of this philosophy.

I don't like this answer, because the "philosophy" is in the rule. A foul is defined as contact that causes a disadvantage. There's not a rule and then a separate philosophy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I don't like this answer, because the "philosophy" is in the rule. A foul is defined as contact that causes a disadvantage. There's not a rule and then a separate philosophy.

And.....it should be made clear that the advantage/disadvantage philosophy(otherwise known as NFHS rule 4-27) also applies to fouls only, not violations.

[BillyMac]

From Jurassic Referee: "It should be made clear that the advantage/disadvantage philosophy(otherwise known as NFHS rule 4-27) also applies to fouls only, not violations".

From Jurassic Referee (a few weeks ago): "Just for the record, I personally don't think that you can take any kind of simplistic view and apply it wholely to game situations. 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".

I hope that Jurassic Referee and I can agree on this: "Most violations must be called". I would like to add that almost all violations must be called, with almost all meaning, pretty much all violations must be called, but every once in a great while, the principle of advantage/disadvantage can be used, with great discretion, to not call a violation. Can we agree on that?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From Jurassic Referee: "It should be made clear that the advantage/disadvantage philosophy(otherwise known as NFHS rule 4-27) also applies to fouls only, not violations".

From Jurassic Referee (a few weeks ago): "Just for the record, I personally don't think that you can take any kind of simplistic view and apply it wholly to game situations. 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".

I hope that Jurassic Referee and I can agree on this: "Most violations must be called". I would like to add that almost all violations must be called, with almost all meaning, pretty much all violations must be called, but every once in a great while, the principle of advantage/disadvantage can be used, with great discretion, to not call a violation. Can we agree on that?

Yup, sure can. My point was that if you're going to post a general philosophy, like the Towers, then you should also maybe make general guidelines while doing so. Imo, a general guideline for the Tower Philosophy is that it applies to fouls and not violations.

Does that sound reasonable?

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, sure can. My point was that if you're going to post a general philosophy, like the Towers, then you should also maybe make general guidelines while doing so. Imo, a general guideline for the Tower Philosophy is that it applies to fouls and not violations.

Does that sound reasonable?

Generally.