Advantage/Disadvantage

[doubleringer]

I have found over the years that the times I talked advantage/disadvantage with a coach almost always got me in trouble. Stick to the rules and be short. "The contact was incidental" and move on.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by 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."

Why do I think this exchange has already happened?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why do you care what coaches think? Coaches think if you look at their player wrong it is a foul. Hand-checking does not circumvent the current rules. There is nothing different about hand-checking than any other contact foul, the difference is they defined what is hand-checking. This is why judgment is what makes or breaks us as officials. We either have it or we do not in my opinion.

Peace

[bellnier]

So displacement doesn't necessarily mean change in advantage/disadvantage? I saw this last night at Canisius-Iona game. A1 inbounds to A2. B bumps A2 displacing him by 1 step. B throws his arms out in the "I didn't mean it" gesture and retreats to front court. No pressure then on A1 or A2. A displacement for sure...and it COULD have forced A2 to walk, and it COULD have resulted in a 10 second violation, but neither happened. No call by ref...is this the right thing? Thanks.

BTW, as a sometimes guilt-ridden former coach I have sympathy for you all, most of the time (well, some of the time)...I sat behind the visiting bench and the coach chirped all night, he had a ***** on every single opposition possession...sheesh that was irritating and more than a little distracting.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why do you care what coaches think?

It's not my job to "care," but it is my job to communicate. I wish I could go through a game and not have to interact with the coaches, but the fact is that we do. It's not unreasonable for a coach to ask a question (if he/she does it in the right way), and for us to give a reasonable answer. Problem is, I still haven't been able to come up with a reasonable answer in this instance.

When I pass on a handcheck because I don't think an advantage (or disadvantage) was gained, coaches are consistently asking me this year why I'm not calling it. Some of them are composed when they talk to me, others fly off the handle. The latter I can deal with.

The former is who I have been struggling with. These are coaches who remember explicitly from the rules clinic that if you put the hand on, then take it off, then put it back on, it's an "automatic" handcheck. That's how it was explained at this year's rule clinic, and we were told that was coming down from NFHS. Also, that two hands on the body is an "automatic" handcheck. Or that keeping a hand or forearm for an "extended" period of time is "automatic."

So, my opportunity as an official to make a judgment call is taken away and I either have to give the coach a stupid look and feel like an idiot when he asks me (in a reasonable manner) why I'm not calling it, or, since I'm doing freshman and JV ball, I have to call 50 handchecks during the course of one game.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bellnier

So displacement doesn't necessarily mean change in advantage/disadvantage? I saw this last night at Canisius-Iona game. A1 inbounds to A2. B bumps A2 displacing him by 1 step. B throws his arms out in the "I didn't mean it" gesture and retreats to front court. No pressure then on A1 or A2. A displacement for sure...and it COULD have forced A2 to walk, and it COULD have resulted in a 10 second violation, but neither happened. No call by ref...is this the right thing?

Seems right to me. Causing the non-pivot foot to move on such a throw-in doesn't prevent A2 from "normal offensive maneuvers."

IF it had caused a travel, then a fould would (or should) have been called. If the bump was because of continuing pressure, or stopped a pass, etc., the a foul would (or should) have been called.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

It's not my job to "care," but it is my job to communicate. I wish I could go through a game and not have to interact with the coaches, but the fact is that we do. It's not unreasonable for a coach to ask a question (if he/she does it in the right way), and for us to give a reasonable answer. Problem is, I still haven't been able to come up with a reasonable answer in this instance.

When I pass on a handcheck because I don't think an advantage (or disadvantage) was gained, coaches are consistently asking me this year why I'm not calling it. Some of them are composed when they talk to me, others fly off the handle. The latter I can deal with.

The former is who I have been struggling with. These are coaches who remember explicitly from the rules clinic that if you put the hand on, then take it off, then put it back on, it's an "automatic" handcheck. That's how it was explained at this year's rule clinic, and we were told that was coming down from NFHS. Also, that two hands on the body is an "automatic" handcheck. Or that keeping a hand or forearm for an "extended" period of time is "automatic."

So, my opportunity as an official to make a judgment call is taken away and I either have to give the coach a stupid look and feel like an idiot when he asks me (in a reasonable manner) why I'm not calling it, or, since I'm doing freshman and JV ball, I have to call 50 handchecks during the course of one game.

I could give a crap what coaches are told in a clinic. I do not base my communication based on what they think they know or understand. I call my game based on the rules and my judgment. If they do not like it, that is their problem. I probably passed many schools to work their school, so what they think is a hand-check is not my concern or affect what I do. The rules say what a hand-check is, and if there is no advantage I am not calling it. Touching is not a foul. And I use the RSQB position (Rhythm, Speed, Quickness and Balance). If those things are not affected, then it is not a foul. Some players blow by defenders that try to put their hands on them. I am not calling a foul or calling a "game interrupter" just to satisfy a coach. I do call a lot of hand-checks early and it stops really quickly because those players will not be in the game too long if they do not know how to play defense without their hands.

Peace

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I could give a crap what coaches are told in a clinic.

So if you go to an official state rules clinic, with coaches and officials all in attendance, and everyone is told by the rules interpreter "Coaches, we're going to call A this year" and you go out and call "B" on the court, and the coach asks you why, what reason are you going to give the coach?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"Coach, there was some contact but it your guy still got around him. I don't want to take a layup away from your player."

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not necessarily true. If the contact prevents the player from going where he wants to go, it's a foul even if he keeps the ball.

Your guy in the above quote was forced slightly off line, away from exactly where he wanted to go, but still was looking at an open layup.

So?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by fiasco

So if you go to an official state rules clinic, with coaches and officials all in attendance, and everyone is told by the rules interpreter "Coaches, we're going to call A this year" and you go out and call "B" on the court, and the coach asks you why, what reason are you going to give the coach?

Just so you know my state has online rules meetings as well as live meetings. The coaches never attend the live meetings (which are held with local associations most of the time now) and not all coaches attended anyway. All that was required is a school send a single representative for the entire coaching staff. So I do not go around worrying what the Freshman B coach told the head coach that did not have the time to attend the meeting themselves.

When I tell coaches things, I give them the rule. If they do not know what I am talking about, that is their problem. I want to be able to say something that can be verified. It is not my responsibility to explain anything in the first place. It is a courtesy. Not something I stay up at night worrying about.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Your guy in the above quote was forced slightly off line, away from exactly where he wanted to go, but still was looking at an open layup.

So?

No-call, and easily explained. I'm not going to pick nits about whether the player was afforded the precise pathway he chose. If his progress isn't impeded or slowed enough to prevent a wide open shot, I'll know-call it.

However, my objection to your wording still stands. Just because a player maintains control of the ball does not mean there's no foul; especially if he's held or otherwise illegally impeded from getting that wide open shot.

[bob jenkins]

To Fiasco's point: There are some words in the 2008-2009 rules book under "POE" that seem to take much of the judgment out of the hand-check foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by gslefeb

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

At the front of the NFHS rulebook is a preamble called "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES". In that is found this statement:
"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 or 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."

Self-explanatory and been there forever.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

To Fiasco's point: There are some words in the 2008-2009 rules book under "POE" that seem to take much of the judgment out of the hand-check foul.

And those still do not circumvent the rules that are in place. The POE did not change anything in the rules, they just gave guidelines. And those still involve judgment.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No-call, and easily explained. I'm not going to pick nits about whether the player was afforded the precise pathway he chose. If his progress isn't impeded or slowed enough to prevent a wide open shot, I'll know-call it.

However, my objection to your wording still stands. Just because a player maintains control of the ball does not mean there's no foul; especially if he's held or otherwise illegally impeded from getting that wide open shot.

This is not what I said. I think we are saying the same thing, but coming at it from different directions. In your play above, the dribbler may have been bumped slightly off line, but still had an open layup. Easy no call. Conversely, if the same bump takes place out at the top, the dribbler has no place to go, but the bump is not what prevented him from having a place to go. I still have a no call.