Advantage - Disadvantage

[lmeadski]

This axiom seems to cause a fair amount of problems amongst our local officials. All seem to agree that using Adv/DisAdv to determine the need for a call is appropriate. Yet, the application of the rule varies widely amongst crews. This disparity is even greater when calling traveling and contact under the hoop. Most of our officials use adv/disdv when asked about a "missed" or controversial call: "there was no adv gained so I didn't call it." Are you finding that in the application of adv/disadv that refs are getting lazy in their calling?

[BillyMac]

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?"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by lmeadski

This axiom seems to cause a fair amount of problems amongst our local officials. All seem to agree that using Adv/DisAdv to determine the need for a call is appropriate. Yet, the application of the rule varies widely amongst crews. This disparity is even greater when calling traveling and contact under the hoop. Most of our officials use adv/disdv when asked about a "missed" or controversial call: "there was no adv gained so I didn't call it." Are you finding that in the application of adv/disadv that refs are getting lazy in their calling?

First of all advantage/disadvantage is written in the rulebook. It is not talked about in the exact terms of "advantage/disadvantage" but it is talked about in the incidental contact rules (Rule 4-27). This rule very clearly states that all contact is not a foul and if normal actions by an offensive or defensive player are not hindered, then a foul should not be called. The rule even says that contact that is severe is not necessarily a foul either.

The question I think you should answer is why do officials feel the need to call the wrong things? From what I see is officials call fouls on the wrong things and hardly ever call fouls on the proper things. For example, I see many illegal screens go on not called or the so-called boxing out (where the defender just backs out a player from behind). And one of the things I see is when that type of contact goes uncalled; the other parts of the game get rougher. It amazes me the minute you call one or two illegal screens in a game, you likely do not have to call another foul of that nature the rest of the game. Or when you do those calls are accepted.

I do not see advantage/disadvantage being the problem. I see officials not calling off ball fouls that need to be called. We are never going to completely agree when those things should be called or not. But I think the issue is not this philosophy but officials do not watch enough off ball and when a team sees officials calling things they have never seen, then that causes a bigger problem.

Peace

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all advantage/disadvantage is written in the rulebook. It is not talked about in the exact terms of "advantage/disadvantage" but it is talked about in the incidental contact rules (Rule 4-27). This rule very clearly states that all contact is not a foul and if normal actions by an offensive or defensive player are not hindered, then a foul should not be called. The rule even says that contact that is severe is not necessarily a foul either.

The question I think you should answer is why do officials feel the need to call the wrong things? From what I see is officials call fouls on the wrong things and hardly ever call fouls on the proper things. For example, I see many illegal screens go on not called or the so-called boxing out (where the defender just backs out a player from behind). And one of the things I see is when that type of contact goes uncalled; the other parts of the game get rougher. It amazes me the minute you call one or two illegal screens in a game, you likely do not have to call another foul of that nature the rest of the game. Or when you do those calls are accepted.

I do not see advantage/disadvantage being the problem. I see officials not calling off ball fouls that need to be called. We are never going to completely agree when those things should be called or not. But I think the issue is not this philosophy but officials do not watch enough off ball and when a team sees officials calling things they have never seen, then that causes a bigger problem.

Peace

The freight train box out is one that seems to baffle the offenders when it is called. My partner called one on a kid yesterday and he was looking so perplexed that my partner explained what he was doing. He apparently was a kid who needs re-tests in class, because not too much time passed before I called him for a foul on a freight train box out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

The freight train box out is one that seems to baffle the offenders when it is called. My partner called one on a kid yesterday and he was looking so perplexed that my partner explained what he was doing. He apparently was a kid who needs re-tests in class, because not too much time passed before I called him for a foul on a freight train box out.

Probably the 3rd or 4th game I called here in Colorado, I had a girl get tagged with this three straight times.

Shooting free throws, and she does it on the free throw.
We shoot two more, and she does it again.
We shoot two more, this time nothing. However, the offense gets the rebound and the same girl does it to the three point shooter, this time injuring her. 8th grade AAU girls. I don't think she realized what she'd done, other than injur another player. Poor kid was crying as she walked to her bench.

Coaching, IMO.

[BillyMac]

From JRutledge: "First of all advantage/disadvantage is written in the rulebook. It is not talked about in the exact terms of "advantage/disadvantage" but it is talked about in the incidental contact rules (Rule 4-27). This rule very clearly states that all contact is not a foul and if normal actions by an offensive or defensive player are not hindered, then a foul should not be called. The rule even says that contact that is severe is not necessarily a foul either"

JRutledge is correct. In addition to advantage/disadvantage being in 4-27 of the Rule Book, it can also be found on page 10:

The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules

The restrictions which the rules place upon the players are intended to create a balance of play; to provide equal opportunity between the offense and the defense; to provide equal opportunity between the small player and the tall player; to provide reasonable safety and protection; to create an atmosphere of sporting behavior and fair play; and to emphasis cleverness and skill without unduly limiting freedom of action of individual or team play on either offense or defense.

Therefore, 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.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

Can you ever put words together that are your own? There is nothing wrong with what you post; I just wonder do you know how to put those things into your own words?

Peace

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all advantage/disadvantage is written in the rulebook. It is not talked about in the exact terms of "advantage/disadvantage" but it is talked about in the incidental contact rules (Rule 4-27). This rule very clearly states that all contact is not a foul and if normal actions by an offensive or defensive player are not hindered, then a foul should not be called. The rule even says that contact that is severe is not necessarily a foul either.

The question I think you should answer is why do officials feel the need to call the wrong things? From what I see is officials call fouls on the wrong things and hardly ever call fouls on the proper things. For example, I see many illegal screens go on not called or the so-called boxing out (where the defender just backs out a player from behind). And one of the things I see is when that type of contact goes uncalled; the other parts of the game get rougher. It amazes me the minute you call one or two illegal screens in a game, you likely do not have to call another foul of that nature the rest of
the game. Or when you do those calls are accepted.

I do not see advantage/disadvantage being the problem. I see officials not calling off ball fouls that need to be called. We are never going to completely agree when those things should be called or not. But I think the issue is not this philosophy but officials do not watch enough off ball and when a team sees officials calling things they have never seen, then that causes a bigger problem.

Peace

Rut, this is so true.

I can take it farther. I know a coach in my area who only whats certain officials to officiate his games. Because, this is directly from the coach.

"I can run certain plays and know that the officials will make the call in my favor due to their tendencies."

I was shocked to hear a coach state this. But, there was truth to his observations

[lmeadski]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The question I think you should answer is why do officials feel the need to call the wrong things? From what I see is officials call fouls on the wrong things and hardly ever call fouls on the proper things.

Peace

I concur with your quote. And, most of the refs I ask why they made the call they did, the answer I usually get regards advantage/disadvantage. I wont go so far as to say they hardly get the calls right. I do however feel their attempts to apply adv/disadv results in some poor/odd/missed calls.