Advantage/Disadvantage

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by justacoach

You'll notice all the examples so far have dealt with using discernment to decide whether the contact rises to level of foul. Many here will avow that advantage/disadvantage should not be applied to violations. Also have a read at 10 second FT violation for the defining document for NFHS, the Tower Philosophy.

Enjoy

Bet very few players have a FT% approaching 75% who come close to violating the 10 second rule consistently.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Bet very few players have a FT% approaching 75% who come close to violating the 10 second rule consistently.

I have only seen this called once in my career and I did not call it. And it was the only time I really can think of that a player got that close or was way over the line in time. Other than that, if a player gets to 5 that is an accomplishment.

BTW, I give the guy crap every time I see him about this call.

Peace

[Larks]

Another school: Think about contact in terms of was it Marginal or Illegal.

Also helps with the explanation: Coach, In my opinion, that contact was marginal and didn't affect your player's ability to ______.

If the contact was illegal, if it clearly affected the player's RSBQ: Whistle

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larks

Another school: Think about contact in terms of was it Marginal or Illegal.

Also helps with the explanation: Coach, In my opinion, that contact was marginal and didn't affect your player's ability to ______.

If the contact was illegal, if it clearly affected the player's RSBQ: Whistle

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

[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 bas2456

I've heard this philosophy brought up quite a bit on the forum, and I was trying to apply it in my most recent games. I found myself most often applying it on rebounding action, when coaches are screaming for the "over the back" foul.

I found that if the rebounder secures the rebound without a problem, there's no reason to call a foul. Is this the right way to apply advantage/disadvantage?

Have you ever tried to explain advantag/disadvantage to a coach, and has it worked?

bas2456,
As you have already seen, the application of advantage/disadvantage leads to interpretation which leads to inconsistency in officiating. If you have any question about this view, simply read the posts that have been made in this thread.

Years ago, a clinician mentioned that there is no quicker way for an official to irritate a coach than to apply advantage/disadvantage and there is no quicker way to issue a technical foul than trying to explain that call to a coach.

For example, there are officials who will not call an obvious illegal dribble (such as when a point guard clearly gets his entire hand under the ball on a dribble) if there is no defensive pressure since "the player did not gain an advantage" with the illegal dribble since there were no defenders in close proximity. If you fail to make the call AND then try to explain it to the defensive coach, the words can cause a problem later on. The slope gets slippier when the point guard for the other team gets a breakaway lay-up later in the game and the same action happens -- the player clearly gets his hand completely under the ball -- on one of his last couple dribbles. As soon as the official makes this call, trouble lurks. Are you going to call this an illegal dribble, after all, there was no defender nearby?

In today's game -- especially varsity level -- officials MUST utilize advantage/disadvantage. Otherwise, most games would have no flow. While you need to apply it, I would not necessarily recommend discussing it that way with the coaches. I prefer terms such as "the player was able to play through the contact" or "the contact was incidental" You are, in essence applying advantage/disadvantage, you just aren't explaining that way to the coaches.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

bas2456,
As you have already seen, the application of advantage/disadvantage leads to interpretation which leads to inconsistency in officiating. If you have any question about this view, simply read the posts that have been made in this thread.

Years ago, a clinician mentioned that there is no quicker way for an official to irritate a coach than to apply advantage/disadvantage and there is no quicker way to issue a technical foul than trying to explain that call to a coach.

For example, there are officials who will not call an obvious illegal dribble (such as when a point guard clearly gets his entire hand under the ball on a dribble) if there is no defensive pressure since "the player did not gain an advantage" with the illegal dribble since there were no defenders in close proximity. If you fail to make the call AND then try to explain it to the defensive coach, the words can cause a problem later on. The slope gets slippier when the point guard for the other team gets a breakaway lay-up later in the game and the same action happens -- the player clearly gets his hand completely under the ball -- on one of his last couple dribbles. As soon as the official makes this call, trouble lurks. Are you going to call this an illegal dribble, after all, there was no defender nearby?

In today's game -- especially varsity level -- officials MUST utilize advantage/disadvantage. Otherwise, most games would have no flow. While you need to apply it, I would not necessarily recommend discussing it that way with the coaches. I prefer terms such as "the player was able to play through the contact" or "the contact was incidental" You are, in essence applying advantage/disadvantage, you just aren't explaining that way to the coaches.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.