Advantage/Disadvantage

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Coach, you seem to miss the point; or I'm misunderstanding you.

Advantage/disadvantage is required, by rule, for contact to be a foul. It's not about not calling fouls to keep the game flowing; it's about distinguishing between incidental contact and a foul.

Officials have to apply A/D, not because of game flow, but because the rules call for it.

And the only time coaches get upset when you apply A/D is when they don't get a foul call. I've had a coach get just as angry when I was too quick to call a foul on marginal contact that took away a layup.

Snaqs,
My point is that using the term "Advantage/Disadvantage" with a coach can be problematic.

Further, read some of the posts -- including yours -- that contradict other officials' view of when/how to apply "Advantage/Disadvantage". Using terms such as "incidental" has worked better for me rather than "Advantage/Disadvantage" -- that is unless I am on a soccer pitch.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Snaqs,
My point is that using the term "Advantage/Disadvantage" with a coach can be problematic.

Further, read some of the posts -- including yours -- that contradict other officials' view of when/how to apply "Advantage/Disadvantage". Using terms such as "incidental" has worked better for me rather than "Advantage/Disadvantage" -- that is unless I am on a soccer pitch.

I agree, I don't use the term "A/D" with coaches. Then again, I haven't had to explain much to coaches when I pass on most of these. "Coach, your guy beat him anyway and got a wide open shot." That works, but they normally understand this anyway.

And yes, there is some disagreement on how to apply it, but I think you'd find it's more a matter of semantics here than an actual difference on the court.

Even my disagreement, in this thread, with jar falls into the semantics category, I think. I doubt he'd call it much differently than I would.

The fact is, applying A/D takes time and games to get right; and there is a progression among officials when learning it. But in the end, it leads to greater consistency rather than less. We cannot call every contact a foul, so A/D provides a more consistent basis for distinguishing.

[Jay R]

I once had a conversation with a coach (not in a gym setting) where we were discussing basketball and I mentionned adv/disadv. He interrupted me and said that was part of the trouble with officials is that we took concepts like A/D that were not in the rulebook and applied them to game situations. I told him that A/D is actually in the rulebook and that it is our job to use it as a way of determing incidental versus illegal. He did not believe me. I had to show him the rulebook before he believed me. This was a long time coach who had been under the impression that A/D was an invention of officials.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I've used that explanation, but with the word "incidental" instead of "marginal".

And by doing so you now have rules backing for any dickhead coach that might question you.

The only response needed imo is "Coach, that was incidental contact." Anything more than that is a rules seminar.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, I don't use the term "A/D" with coaches. Then again, I haven't had to explain much to coaches when I pass on most of these. "Coach, your guy beat him anyway and got a wide open shot." That works, but they normally understand this anyway.

And yes, there is some disagreement on how to apply it, but I think you'd find it's more a matter of semantics here than an actual difference on the court.

Even my disagreement, in this thread, with jar falls into the semantics category, I think. I doubt he'd call it much differently than I would.

The fact is, applying A/D takes time and games to get right; and there is a progression among officials when learning it. But in the end, it leads to greater consistency rather than less. We cannot call every contact a foul, so A/D provides a more consistent basis for distinguishing.

Largely Agree. I have a very good friend who has been a basketball coach for over 20 years. I have coached against him for much of that time. He frequently gets upset with officials. When he gets irritated with officials, he will tell me, "ALL I am looking for is consistency."

The inconsistency, in my opinion, is largely due to a couple of factors. First of all, inexperience. It takes a great deal of time to become consistent as an official -- and none of us will ever be perfect in this area. I feel that this is the toughest part of officiating is consistently making each call during a quarter, during a game, and during a season. The second factor is a large variance within the way officials call a game. In other words, as individuals, we are calling a consistent game, but as a "crew" we are not consistent since one is calling a tighter game than the other. I now largely work with a couple of different crews. In each case, we call a similar game. When I work games with "blind dates", it is more likely that we will be inconsistent -- not because we are individually inconsistent, but because we apply advantage/disadvantage differently during a game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

He frequently gets upset with officials. When he gets irritated with officials, he will tell me, "ALL I am looking for is consistency."

And "All I am looking for is consistency" is coachese for "All I am looking for is ALL the close calls to go in my favor." He gets upset with officials because they won't do that.

I know your friend. He's a typical coach.

[Adam]

I take cries for consistency with a block of salt. I understand the "similar plays similar whistles" philosophy; but sometimes the plays aren't as similar from our perspective as they seem to a biased coach.

Sometimes, we see the close plays so clearly it's not even funny. Defender on one end gets into position just in time, but in time, and we call the PC. On the other end, the defender may be clearly (but closely) late so we call the block.

The same concept applies to incidental contact; especially in the paint and especially with disparate talent. Two point guards for opposite teams, A1 going to D1 next year and B1 a freshman thrown into the starting job by injuries. A1 will be able to play through a lot more contact than B1, so even though A/D may be applied consistently, it may look inconsistent to the untrained eye.

[gslefeb]

What rule specifically uses the word(s) advantage / disadvantage ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

What rule specifically uses the word(s) advantage / disadvantage ?

The definitions of "foul" and "incidental contact." A foul involves "illegal contact" which hinders the opponent from making "normal defensive and offensive movements."

Inidental contact includes contact which does not prevent "normal defensive and offensive movements."

The words aren't there, but that's what it means.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

What rule specifically uses the word(s) advantage / disadvantage ?

Ask your interpreter. He was on the rules committee for a 4 year term recently and I am sure he can give you a good explanation at the mid-season meeting either this Sunday or next.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And "All I am looking for is consistency" is coachese for "All I am looking for is ALL the close calls to go in my favor." He gets upset with officials because they won't do that.

I know your friend. He's a typical coach.

Jurassic,
Trust me, he is anything but TYPICAL...

You are ABSOLUTELY correct in this case.

My point is that one of the most common things we hear from coaches, spectators, players, etc., is "just be consistent." The fact is, this "just" request is one of the most challenging skills that officials/referees/umpires of all sports learn only through games and games of experience.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

What rule specifically uses the word(s) advantage / disadvantage ?

Rule 4 (Snaqs has cited the specific definitions) uses the concept of advantage/disadvantage without using those words.

[fiasco]

I have a problem with NFHS wanting us to apply advantage/disadvantage, and then making a point in the rules clinic that the coaches attend in regards to handchecking that handchecking is to be called in certain situations regardless of whether an advantage is gained or disadvantage created.

That's the problem I've run into with coaches lately re: handchecking. They are told at the rules meeting that if you spot up your opponent with your hand/arm, release, and then spot up again, *tweet*.

They are also told that if you put a hand on and leave it there, *tweet*.

ADV/DADV doesn't apply in those interpretations, so we are left blowing in the wind. I still haven't heard a satisfactory answer as to how to solve this dilemma.

[Adam]

Sounds like a state issue to me. The NFHS doesn't do rules clinics that I'm aware of; but I think part of the issue is that a good guard can hand check to advantage in a way that is difficult for us to detect.

[Mark Padgett]

Coach: "Why didn't you call a foul on that shot at the horn? He got hammered."

Me: "It's the advantage/disadvantage principle, coach. If I called a foul, the free throws might have sent the game into overtime and that's to my disadvantage."