Ref Explains Advantage/Disadvantage

[mplagrow]

What do you guys think of this attempt to explain Advantage/Disadvantage?

REF - It all boils down to the fundamental philosophy of the rules, commonly referred to as "The Tower Philosophy." It was named in honor of an old timer by the name of Oswald Tower who is credited with explaining that the rules are based on the concept of "Advantage and Disadvantage."

LIB.com - "Advantage and Disadvantage?" Do you mean "no harm, no foul?"

REF - Well, that's an extreme way of looking at it. Actually, it has to do with the overall concept of trying to create a "balance of play" with "equal opportunity" between offense and defense, small player and tall player. Ideally, the rules create an atmosphere of sportsmanship and fair play with emphasis on cleverness and skill. To that end, no player or team should be permitted to gain an "advantage" (or be put at a "disadvantage") that is not intended by the rules. The best referees understand this notion and apply it throughout the game, no matter what level they are working.

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. It takes a clear understanding of both the rules AND the philosophy to know when the whistle needs to be blown and when you can "chew on it" (not blow). The RULES BOOK gives the referee all the ammunition needed to handle any situation that may develop during a game. But the game is about players and teachers (coaches). It is NOT about an official playing "Deputy Dog" on the court and blowing the whistle for every little infraction.

LIB.com - But, players, coaches and even spectators love to talk about "consistency" when it comes to referees. What's going on there?

REF - The problem, if there is a problem, goes back to your first question. The best referees have gained an understanding of the "spirit and intent" of the rules and do a wonderful and CONSISTENT job of administering the rules using this concept. Unfortunately, the players, coaches and spectators do not usually see the game from the same perspective as a referee. The referees are expected to make instantaneous decisions in the midst of an environment where everyone else tends to be extremely biased in their views and cannot see any other perspectives but their own. Too often, it seems, referees are labeled as "inconsistent" when, in fact, they may have done a marvelously "consistent" job of handling difficult decisions within the spirit and intent of the rules.

The entire interview can be found here:

http://www.longislandbasketball.com/AskTheRef2.html

[The Canuck]

Whoever that guy is, he sure likes to hear himself talk.

It takes maximum three sentences what it took four paragraphs for that guy to say.

[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.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

Unfortunately, the players, coaches and spectators do not usually see the game from the same perspective as a referee. The referees are expected to make instantaneous decisions in the midst of an environment where everyone else tends to be extremely biased in their views and cannot see any other perspectives but their own. Too often, it seems, referees are labeled as "inconsistent" when, in fact, they may have done a marvelously "consistent" job of handling difficult decisions within the spirit and intent of the rules.

This was great!

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by The Canuck

Whoever that guy is, he sure likes to hear himself talk.

It takes maximum three sentences what it took four paragraphs for that guy to say.

It's an interview, gotta have meat to be able to print it.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

This was great!

That is an understatement!!!!

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by jkjenning

This was great!

It was obviously the quote of an experienced ref. It was well stated. Or as I like to put it, when fans or coaches think they see something because of their bias, "I don't have a dog in this fight!"

[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.